BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London Bill [Lords]
	 — 
	Buckinghamshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Readings opposed and deferred until Tuesday 2 September (Standing Order No. 20).

Schools: Birmingham

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Paper, entitled ‘Report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter’, dated 22 July 2014.—(Anne Milton.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Israel/Palestine

Simon Danczuk: What assessment he has made of whether the recent use of force by the Israelis in Gaza is proportionate; and what steps he is taking to promote a ceasefire in that conflict.

Anne McGuire: What steps his Department is taking to support projects which foster co-operation and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians.

Stephen McCabe: What recent discussions he has had with his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts and others on the continuing violence and loss of life in Gaza.

Bob Russell: What plans he has to visit Israel to discuss the current situation in that region.

Andrew McDonald: What recent discussions he has had with his Israeli and Palestinian counterparts on progress towards peace in that region.

Tobias Ellwood: May I begin by apologising for the Foreign Secretary’s absence? He is in Brussels attending the EU Foreign Affairs Council. In his absence, I am, of course, delighted to be answering 14 of the 25 oral questions today.
	As the Prime Minister said in his comprehensive statement yesterday, we are clear that Israel has a right to defend itself against these attacks. No country would stand by as rockets are fired or terrorist tunnels are constructed into their territory. We are equally clear that Israel’s response must be proportionate, taking all necessary steps to minimise civilian casualties in line with international humanitarian law.

Simon Danczuk: I thank the Minister for his response, but we have seen kids being bombed on beaches, tanks attacking hospitals and hundreds of civilians—babies, mothers, patients—being killed. Thousands of Rochdale people and millions of people in the United Kingdom expect their Government to condemn more and understand less. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Minister call Israel to account over its actions in Gaza?

Tobias Ellwood: Nobody can fail but be moved by the incredible heart-wrenching scenes we have seen on television. I spoke to the Israeli ambassador and the Palestinian head of mission to the UK yesterday, and I raised concerns about the civilian deaths and casualties with the Israeli ambassador and urged him to ensure that any allegations relating to proportionality be investigated, and he assured me that this would be the case.

Anne McGuire: We realise that peace is not just about a settlement between Governments, but about people living together. I know that the Foreign Office invests significant resources in single community projects, but in order to build up confidence and break down barriers between the peoples in the region will the Minister look at how we can support cross-community initiatives?

Tobias Ellwood: The right hon. Lady is right to point out that there are some wider issues to be dealt with. Our aim is to support and strengthen constituencies for peace through the tri-departmental conflict pool fund. In 2013-14 we funded 17 projects through the conflict pool programme for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with a budget of £4 million.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Minister to his post. I support Israel’s right to defend itself and I condemn the actions of Hamas, but may I urge the Minister to redouble the British Government’s efforts not just to achieve a ceasefire but to restart peace talks designed to achieve a lasting peace, so that we can end this recurring spectre of the suffering of thousands of innocent Palestinians?

Tobias Ellwood: That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary is trying to achieve in his work in Brussels today, and the Egyptian leadership is making efforts to do the same, bringing parties together in the region. The UK has three objectives: to secure a ceasefire; to alleviate humanitarian suffering; and to keep alive the prospects for peace negotiations, which are the only hope for ending the cycle of violence once and for all.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that if the Foreign Secretary last week, when he was Defence Secretary, had ordered British troops to fire on civilian communities in the way the Israelis have, he would be guilty of a war crime?

Tobias Ellwood: I am not going to get drawn into that. I think the hon. Gentleman raised the same issue with the Prime Minister yesterday and I will leave my comments there.

Andrew McDonald: Last week, four boys, all from the Bakr family, aged seven to 11 years—Zakaria, Ahed and two boys named Mohammad—were playing hide and seek among the fishermen’s huts at the Gaza city harbour when, as they ran along the beach, their bodies were ripped to shreds in an instant by an incoming Israeli shell. What threat did those little boys pose to Israeli security, and will the Minister condemn the murderous behaviour of Israel as completely disproportionate and a crime against humanity?

Tobias Ellwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point implicitly, which is that, sadly, the location of this battlefield is one of the most populous areas on the planet. Hamas and Israeli armed forces are conducting these operations in densely populated areas, not least in the Shujai’iya district. Unfortunately, that is also where the tunnel systems are operating and from where, on average, 147 rockets are hitting Israel every day—but, absolutely, as I said before, there are questions to be raised about the civilians, and I put those to the Israeli ambassador yesterday.

Alistair Burt: First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to what, although it does not look like it at the moment, is the best junior ministerial job in the Government? Although an urgent ceasefire is essential, the reason Gaza is ablaze again remains the same as ever: the inability of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Israel to make the necessary concessions to each other to ensure a middle east peace agreement. Will he use his time in office to ensure that the UK does all in its power, together with friends from Washington to all the Arab states, to drive the parties together again for the negotiations that each must have with the other? Will he ensure that they do understand that whatever the justifications for their actions—God knows, we have heard and sympathised with them all for decades—it is no longer worth the loss of life of any more little boys and girls?

Tobias Ellwood: First, I pay tribute to the work my right hon. Friend did as Minister with responsibility for the middle east. I am grateful for the support he has already provided me with, and I hope it continues. He rightly says that we must participate, with other nations, in looking for a long-term solution. A cessation of the violence will allow the opportunity to tackle the underlying causes of instability in the Gaza strip, without which the long-term security of both Israel and Gaza will not be secured.

Richard Ottaway: The Israeli defence forces have detected 18 Hamas-built tunnels and found 45 others extending from Gaza into Israel. Many of the tunnels in Gaza originate in civilian
	areas, beneath homes, greenhouses and mosques. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite understandable that Israel seeks to find these tunnels and destroy them to protect its country and its civilians?

Tobias Ellwood: It is worrying that on 8 July a Hamas spokesman called on civilians in the Gaza strip to serve as human shields. We have seen on television the pictures of those tunnels, and I have seen reports that 20% of the concrete that goes into Gaza is put to use in making them. That is a shocking indictment of the priorities of Hamas and it needs to change.

John Howell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On 15 July, 17 July and 20 July, Israel agreed to accept a ceasefire, but was greeted by Hamas firing more rockets at Israel. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the refusal by Hamas to accept a ceasefire?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend rightly points out that Israel has put forward its interest in a ceasefire, and that remains today. We call upon Hamas to join the ranks in Egypt to discuss not just the ceasefire but long-term peace prospects for the area.

Martin Horwood: Respectable democracies should not meet unacceptable attacks with unacceptable and disproportionate responses, including the bombing of mosques and hospitals, and the deaths of hundreds of civilians. Is the Secretary of State today raising with other European Governments the EU-Israel association agreement, which is supposed to be based on the shared values of respect for human rights, peace and stability?

Tobias Ellwood: I will not pre-empt what the Secretary of State will announce at his meeting. I know that his primary objective is to join all the parties and call for an immediate ceasefire.

Peter Hain: Does the Minister agree that the terrible carnage in Gaza means that the prospects for the two-state solution we all want are vanishing? It was still very possible back in 2000; I recall that when I was middle east Minister I had discussions with Prime Minister Barak and Yasser Arafat in Palestine, but that all collapsed and Hamas was elected. Now, Israel’s refusal to negotiate seriously with Hamas, coupled with its merciless assault on Gaza, risks inviting in something even worse and more extreme—ISIS. Surely we should learn from Northern Ireland that to end wars people have to negotiate with their enemies or the terror simply gets worse.

Tobias Ellwood: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his interest and experience in this area. He is right to point out that we face very difficult challenges. On a positive note, we welcome the announcement of the formation of a new interim technocratic Government for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, reuniting Gaza and the west bank under a Government committed to peace, which is a necessary condition for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Robert Halfon: Last week, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency issued a statement showing that Hamas had left missiles and rocket launchers inside a school in Gaza. Does that not show that Hamas is using its civilians to protect its missiles and that Israel is using its missile defences to protect its civilians from attack?

Tobias Ellwood: As I implied earlier, it is unfortunate that these events are taking place in one of the most populous areas of the world, and Hamas seems to be taking advantage of that to launch its attacks.

Gerald Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I warned Yitzhak Rabin, the former Israeli Prime Minister, that if he did not make peace with Fatah, he would be left with Hamas? He made the effort and was murdered for his pains by another Jew. Will the Minister make it clear that, with the death toll rising to 600, which includes the murder of 25 members of one extended family, he will join John Kerry, who has derided and scorned Israel’s claim of pinpointing its attacks and warned it that not only will it suffer more casualties but that it will be left with Palestinians who will refuse ever to negotiate with it?

Tobias Ellwood: The right hon. Gentleman illustrates how complex these matters are. I join him in congratulating John Kerry on the work he has done. The UK Government strongly support the tireless efforts of the US Secretary of State and his team to facilitate a final status agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and I know he is pursuing that now he has arrived in the region.

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend will know the impact that white phosphorus shells can have on civilian populations in particular. Many of us were appalled to see the use of them in a previous Israeli incursion into Gaza. Will he inform the Israeli ambassador, and all parties in this conflict, that the eyes of the world are on them, and that, whatever their reasons for prosecuting this conflict, we will be watching them very carefully to see how they are doing that?

Tobias Ellwood: The use of white phosphorus and indeed of cluster munitions was raised in the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. We have seen no evidence to date that they have been used during recent events in Gaza. However, the defence section in Tel Aviv will approach the Israeli defence forces to inquire whether they are being used in this current campaign.

Douglas Alexander: May I welcome the Minister to his post and say that I fully appreciate the reasons for the new Foreign Secretary being in Brussels today. As we have heard, Operation Protective Edge has already cost more than 580 Palestinian lives, most of whom are civilians and many of whom are innocent children. Last week, I warned that an Israeli ground operation in Gaza would bring more suffering for the Palestinians and would be a strategic error for Israel. The Opposition are clear that we oppose this escalation. Do the Government?

Tobias Ellwood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks; I hope that I get the same warm welcome at every Foreign Office questions. He is right to remind
	the House of the heavy death toll that is being endured in the region, with almost 600 dead, 3,600 injured and 83,000 displaced so far. These matters are being raised in Brussels as we speak, and I think the Foreign Secretary intends to put out a statement on his return.

Douglas Alexander: That was a troubling answer, even from a colleague whom I welcome to his position on the Front Bench. I welcome the fact that the US Secretary of State John Kerry has travelled to Cairo seeking an urgent ceasefire, but the pattern of rocket attacks, periodic invasion and permanent occupation does not bring security for Israel and brings further humiliation and suffering for the Palestinians. As in the past, this incursion will end with an agreement. The question is how many more children and civilians need to die before such an agreement is reached. Does the Minister accept that the absence of such an agreement will recruit more terrorists at exactly the point at which Hamas had been weakened by events in Tehran, Syria and Egypt?

Tobias Ellwood: I think that the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The work that has been going on is trying to achieve a ceasefire, which is why the Foreign Secretary, who is in Brussels at the moment, will be flying to the region very shortly. John Kerry is there and so is Ban Ki-moon. We also must not forget that Hamas is firing an average of 147 rockets every single day. Were that to stop, the situation in Gaza would change significantly.

Freedom of Religion and Belief

Graeme Morrice: What recent discussions he has had with his overseas counterparts on upholding freedom of religion and belief.

Nicholas Dakin: What recent discussions he has had with his overseas counterparts on upholding freedom of religion and belief.

Hugo Swire: We remain deeply concerned about a disturbing and unwelcome trend of persecution on the basis of religion or belief. Regrettably, this is not confined to a single region nor to a single faith, but we counteract it wherever we can. This has included recent work from Sudan to Nigeria, from Iraq to Burma, and from Pakistan to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for that answer, but in Egypt Coptic and Orthodox churches are being attacked, in Mosul in Iraq Christians have been driven out by ISIS, Muslims in Burma are facing violence from mobs and Christians in Pakistan face persecution from the state. Is it not time that the international community, led by this UK Government, took more action on this growing crisis?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight these terrible things. Some hon. Members will have seen the reports in The Times this morning about ISIS in Iraq, and they are truly troubling. We continue to work through the United Nations to ensure that states implement Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, which focuses on combating religious intolerance, protecting the human
	rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society. The hon. Gentleman will have to agree, however, that ensuring freedom of religion and freedom of speech in some of these countries, which face the most horrific internal disruptions, is extremely difficult.

Nicholas Dakin: Ayatollah Tehrani’s gift of illuminated calligraphy to the Baha’i is an act in the spirit of the UN declaration of human rights, which states that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, which I welcome, what more can Britain do to celebrate such acts and challenge religious intolerance, wherever it occurs in the world?

Hugo Swire: I think that it would be appropriate for me to pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has been doing some excellent work in this area, not least by convening a high-level international grouping on the subject during the UN General Assembly ministerial week in New York. She will reconvene that group. We have also set up an advisory group on the freedom of religion or belief in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we will continue to do what we can through our embassies around the world. It is extremely difficult work at this time, when religions of all types, not just Christians, are facing the most horrific oppression in all four corners of the world.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Government continue to make representations to the Government of Pakistan to reform their blasphemy laws, which are often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities, including the Christian community? In particular, will the Government take up the case of Aisha Bibi, a mother of five children and a Christian who has been convicted under these laws and has been imprisoned for four years awaiting an appeal?

Hugo Swire: We raise these issues consistently at senior ministerial levels in Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary lobbied Prime Minister Sharif during his visit in May. We made it clear that Pakistan must guarantee the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their ethnicity.

Dominic Raab: Given our historic ties with and moral responsibility for the people of Hong Kong, will the Minister make it clear that our growing friendship with China requires its leaders to keep their promise at the time of the handover to allow free and fair elections in Hong Kong by 2017?

Hugo Swire: Indeed. I met Martin Lee and Anson Chan when they were over here last week. We stand by our early commitments. We want to see a transition towards universal suffrage, but ultimately that must be decided by the Government in the Hong Kong special administrative region, by the people of Hong Kong and by the Government in Beijing.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Minister update the House on the violence in Mandalay in Burma earlier this month, and on the fact that the religious affairs Minister is now in custody?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady probably knows better than almost anyone in the House that the situation in Burma remains extremely difficult. Given our meetings and exchanges across the Floor of the House, I think that she recognises the extraordinary work and support that we are putting in to ensure a transition from one form of government to a democracy in Burma, with all its religious and ethnic divides. We continue to lobby. I had the Burmese ambassador in recently to raise my concerns about the consensus but also about religious tolerance, with the Rohingya. If the hon. Lady wishes to come and see me, I am always happy to discuss the situation in Burma, as she knows. We are the first Government to have produced a cross-Burma strategy showing all the work that we are doing there.

Mark Pritchard: Will the Minister of State speak with the Secretary of State for International Development to ensure that UK taxpayers’ money does not go directly to states that persecute the Christian Church worldwide?

Hugo Swire: I think we have got better at ensuring that our aid goes to the right places, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise it. Of course, there is an issue. As we have reached 0.7% of GDP going to our aid budget, and as the GDP of this country increases due to the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan, there is more money around to help alleviate poverty around the world. It is up to us to ensure that that money reaches the right target.

John Spellar: The world will have been shocked by the recent attacks on and violent expulsion of Christians in Mosul, but this is only the latest outrage in a rising tide of religious intolerance around the world, largely but by no means exclusively targeted at Christians. The United Nations declaration of human rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In this country, we enjoy that right, but too many around the world are persecuted for their faith. What, if any, substantial initiatives has the FCO taken to advance and protect those rights?

Hugo Swire: If I might say so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman might have written his question before I answered the first question, because I addressed the issue that he raises. I talked about the work being done by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in convening high-level groupings at the UN General Assembly in ministerial week in New York, which she will be doing again. I have talked about the FCO’s new advisory group on freedom of religious belief. I have talked about our work with ambassadors and journalists around the world to encourage religious tolerance, which we will continue to do. We continue to take this issue, which is one of the FCO’s six human rights priorities, extraordinarily seriously. In a way, the issue is being addressed today in the girl summit, which follows the preventing sexual violence initiative summit. The Government cannot be accused of not doing our best.

Mr Speaker: I think there is scope for a full day’s debate on the matter.

Bob Blackman: In Sri Lanka, mosques and churches are subject to attacks by radical Buddhists. Will my right hon. Friend take the matter up with the Sri Lankan Government so that religious minorities are protected in this traditional land in Sri Lanka?

Hugo Swire: We remain concerned by the significant surge in attacks on minority groups in Sri Lanka—not least the recent anti-Muslim violence. I met representatives of the Sri Lankan Muslim community to listen to their concerns, which we have raised with the Sri Lankan Government. The March UN Human Rights Council resolution, which was driven by the UK, urges the Sri Lankan Government to investigate all alleged attacks on members of religious minority groups and temples, mosques and churches.

Lyn Brown: Given the track record of President Rajapaksa on accountability and reconciliation, is the Minister satisfied that he has the will and the capacity to act?

Hugo Swire: The hon. Lady will know that I went to the UNHRC to speak in favour of a resolution, which has brought about the inquiry. We still say that the Sri Lankan Government should listen to what is being suggested and should abide by the UN ruling. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position, “Will they?” Well, that remains to be seen. The answer is that they should. The UN has spoken. It wants an international inquiry, and Sri Lanka should respond.

Richard Graham: Given the rise of religious intolerance, the violence in the middle east region and the ghastly widespread human suffering in Gaza, does my right hon. Friend agree that one notable exception to religious intolerance is the role of Christians and Christianity in Gaza?

Hugo Swire: I pay tribute to Christians who are suffering oppression all over the middle east and the rest of the world. It must be extraordinarily difficult to be a Christian in Gaza at the present time.

Iraq

Ann Clwyd: What recent assessment he has made of the political, security and humanitarian situation in Iraq.

Mike Gapes: What the Government’s policy is on the future constitutional and political status of Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Tobias Ellwood: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant poses a threat to Iraq, the region and beyond. I welcome the appointment of a new Parliamentary Speaker last week in Iraq, and hope a new and inclusive Government will be formed quickly. The UK has announced £5 million of humanitarian support for the people of Iraq.

Ann Clwyd: I was for seven years the special envoy on human rights to Iraq, and the Minister accompanied me on one occasion, so he should be better informed of
	that than most. Has he seen the report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? She says:
	“Every day we receive accounts of a terrible litany of human rights violations being committed in Iraq against ordinary Iraqi children, women and men, who have been deprived of their security, their livelihoods,”
	their education, their homes—and many of them, of course, have fled. What exactly are the British Government doing to help Iraqis at this time? The amount of money the Minister mentioned is totally insufficient.

Tobias Ellwood: If I may, I shall first pay tribute to the work that the right hon. Lady has done. It was a pleasure to travel with her and she is hugely experienced in this area. Unfortunately, the chaos that we are currently witnessing in Iraq is allowing many humanitarian problems to exist and allowing human rights violations to take place. We are working with the Iraqi leaders, and the urgent priority is the formation of an inclusive Government that can command the support of all the Iraqi leaders in the communities, and jointly combat the threat of ISIL. We welcome the fact that Iraq’s new Parliament met on 15 June to appoint a Speaker. The right hon. Lady will know that now the Speaker is in place, a President and a Prime Minister can be appointed. Those are positive steps in moving forward.

Mike Gapes: Unfortunately, the Foreign Secretary is not here, but in his last appearance as Defence Secretary, he told me three times that the British Government were in favour of a unified state in Iraq. Is the reality not that a state of Iraq will continue only if there is the loosest possible confederation? Given the facts on the ground, we should be doing far more to support the Kurdistan region, which is democratic and pluralistic, at this time.

Tobias Ellwood: I was in northern Iraq last month and I was there when President Barzani made the statement of intent to move towards independence. We have heard no more details on that and we will not react to that until something more is forthcoming. However, Iraq needs to be united in tackling the challenges it faces, including the serious threats that are posed not only in Iraq but in the wider region. To achieve that, a new and inclusive Iraqi Government must be formed as quickly as possible, which includes the Kurds. The hon. Gentleman will know from his visits to the country that the Kurds have been distanced from what is going on in Baghdad, as have the Sunnis. Moderate Sunnis have indeed been pushed into ISIL. We are looking for a more inclusive Baghdad Government, which will unify Iraq.

Nadhim Zahawi: May I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position? It is a well deserved promotion. The Kurdistan Regional Government now have a 1,000 km border with ISIS. Their budget has not been paid since March by the central Government. Would the Minister’s Department look at what help we can offer the Kurdistan Regional Government? As John Kerry said, these people share our values. It is important that we support them in their struggle against ISIS.

Tobias Ellwood: It is not just the payment for the peshmerga; funds from Baghdad have been withheld in other areas, too. The UK will not take sides in that dispute, but we
	have offered on a number of occasions to mediate if that would be helpful and the offer remains on the table. We believe there is potential for a win-win solution to be found that can benefit both the Kurdistan region and the rest of Iraq, and indeed Turkey and Britain, as they promote exports of oil.

Nicola Blackwood: Like Boko Haram and the Taliban, when ISIS rape and enslave women, it is strategic—they are terrorising whole communities—but when our outstanding former Foreign Secretary led an international campaign against such violence, it was labelled “trivial” by many in our press. Will the new Minister please reject that fundamental misunderstanding of how communities are terrorised in such conflicts, and will he commit himself to fighting violence against women and girls as a security as well as a humanitarian priority?

Tobias Ellwood: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work and commitment in this field. I would be grateful for the opportunity to meet her, to discuss it in more detail. She will be aware that a girl summit is taking place at Lancaster house today, and it will be focusing on those very issues.

Derek Twigg: May I raise again the issue of Christians in Iraq? I do not think the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), answered the previous question in any detail. What are the Government doing in the international community and the UN and with the Iraqi Government to bring attention to the plight of Christians in Iraq, given the terrible threats made against them?

Tobias Ellwood: There are threats to Christians, for example in the Mosul area, where they are experiencing intolerance and indeed brutality because of ISIL. That is a particular tragedy for Mosul, given that it has one of the oldest Christian communities in the world. We will work with the new Government in Baghdad to raise these matters further.

Philip Hollobone: Does the state of Iraq have the necessary defence and security capability to recapture the territory lost to the caliphate forces?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend asks an important question. Because of the disparity in the way Iraq is currently operating—I have encouraged a more inclusive approach—there is a disjointed capability. The Americans have moved in with their advisers and are working very hard indeed to upgrade the authorised military capability, so that we do not need to lean on the militias, such as the Shi’ite militias, to tackle ISIL.

Ian Lucas: First, I welcome the Minister to his post. What is the Government’s assessment of the nature of the relationship between Prime Minister Maliki and the Kurdistan Regional Government?

Tobias Ellwood: As I implied and as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has not been a good relationship between Baghdad and the Kurdish region. An improvement in that relationship is a prerequisite of Iraq remaining unified.

Property Mis-selling: Cyprus

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will take steps to support UK citizens who have been victims of property mis-selling in Cyprus.

David Lidington: Following our lobbying, the Cypriot Government have now formed a ministerial committee to address property issues, including foreign currency mortgages and title deeds. We continue to work with that committee and with the Cypriot Government generally to try to resolve property problems, which undoubtedly cause great anguish to those British citizens caught up in them.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister is aware that thousands of British citizens, including a number of my constituents, have lost large sums of money—sometimes their life savings—as a result of a particular property mis-selling scam, and now some of them are being pursued in the British courts by some of the banks involved in the scandal. The decision by the Cypriot Government to set up a committee is therefore welcome, but can the Minister take a more active role in trying to ensure that those who have suffered from the scam do not suffer even more?

David Lidington: This certainly remains a high priority for us in our meetings with Cypriot Ministers; it is a matter which our high commissioner takes up regularly with Cypriot officials and Ministers and which I have raised on many occasions with successive Foreign Ministers of Cyprus. Clearly, when a matter is before United Kingdom courts, there are limits to what Ministers can do to intervene, but I will always be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman if there are particular constituency cases he would like to discuss.

Iran

Tom Clarke: What recent assessment he has made of progress in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran on that country’s nuclear programme.

Tobias Ellwood: Negotiations with Iran on a comprehensive agreement have been tough but productive. It was not possible to reach a deal by 20 July, but both sides are committed to building on the progress that has been made. We have therefore agreed with Iran to extend the Geneva interim agreement until 24 November to give us the time to bridge the differences, in particular on the core issue of enrichment.

Tom Clarke: I congratulate the Minister on his well deserved appointment. Does he consider that the timetable set for agreement between the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany and Iran on the enrichment of nuclear materials is sufficient?

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that welcome. The right hon. Gentleman and I have spent much time in this place discussing some of the very issues that we are talking about now. He is right to raise concerns about
	the deal. Rather than making a bad deal, we believe it is important to delay it to make sure that we have an appropriate deal. Talks have been productive. Both sides have worked hard on a draft text but more time is needed to bridge the differences that remain, in particular on enrichment, and to agree the details of how the agreement will be implemented.

Jack Lopresti: The joint plan of action abandons the demands made by the six United Nations Security Council resolutions that Iran must halt all enrichment, so what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the message that this would send to the Iranian regime about how serious we are about sticking to our guns where Iran’s nuclear capabilities are concerned?

Tobias Ellwood: I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns and pay tribute to him for his interest in this area. We are looking for the appropriate deal to be struck. It has not been on the table up to this point. It was decided to delay matters until November and I hope to be able to report back to the House very soon on what progress has been made.

Murder Trials: British Nationals Abroad

Steve Rotheram: What steps he is taking to support families attending murder trials of British nationals abroad.

Mark Simmonds: We provide a high level of support to families whose loved ones are murdered or on trial abroad, alongside UK police and specialist non-governmental organisations which we part-fund. Support can include providing additional information about local lawyers, accompanying families to meetings and attending trials at key points. We are currently reviewing what additional support is possible and consulting widely on the matter.

Steve Rotheram: Will the Minister look again at what financial assistance the Government can provide to parents of those murdered abroad, specifically including interest-free loans so that families of victims can attend trials on foreign soil and see for themselves that justice is done?

Mark Simmonds: I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman has a particularly sensitive case in his constituency, but I can assure him that we look at the individual circumstances of every case and an assessment is made of vulnerability. We use NGOs such as Missing Abroad, which can help secure free or cheap flights. Also, we use NGOs to provide video conferencing facilities to enable loved ones to watch the proceedings that take place. I hope he has been contacted about the consultation. We are looking at what more we can do to help the families.

Bilateral EU Free Trade Agreements

Michael Fabricant: What recent progress has been made on negotiations on bilateral EU free trade agreements; and if he will make a statement.

David Lidington: Earlier this month the European Union held the latest negotiating rounds on two major free trade agreements with the United States and Japan respectively. We are aiming to agree these deals next year. Between them they could add £15 billion to the United Kingdom’s economy each year.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that answer, although I think it is unfortunate that because of our membership of the European Union, we cannot enter into bilateral agreements ourselves. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that the transatlantic trade and investment partnership will provide a useful boost to Jaguar Land Rover and other motoring companies in the west midlands and elsewhere?

David Lidington: A successful TTIP deal would indeed provide great opportunities for the United Kingdom’s very successful automotive industry, which has hit records in both production and exports during the lifetime of this Government. It would also benefit other areas of this country, most notably Scotland.

Michael Connarty: The Minister is trying to catch me out by mentioning Scotland, but he knows that there are major concerns in three areas about the TTIP between the EU and the US. One is food safety, with the use of hormones in the US, which may be forced into Europe. Secondly, there is the problem with the threat to public services and privatisation of the service. The third area of concern is dispute settlement in other agreements, which allows tobacco companies to take countries such as Australia to court for introducing packaging which show people the damage caused by smoking tobacco. Will the Minister give me an assurance that we will not sign up to these three items without bringing them before the House for agreement?

David Lidington: As regards food safety, clearly we should be guided at all times by rigorous scientific analysis of what the risks amount to. On investor-state dispute settlements, the United Kingdom is already party to more than 90 of these, and the TTIP would provide explicit protection for the right to regulate, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s fears would be realised.

Stephen Mosley: It is estimated that EU-US free trade will save the average family £400 a year through cheaper prices and increased competition. With such huge potential benefits, will my right hon. Friend push to ensure that the TTIP negotiations are completed as quickly as possible?

David Lidington: We believe that it is in the interests of every family in the United Kingdom that this successful trade deal is concluded as soon as possible. Priority areas for us include the automotive industry, financial services, procurement, agriculture, and food and drink. There are tremendous opportunities for British business through a successful TTIP negotiation.

Gareth Thomas: Would it not be sensible for the Minister to ensure that his boss is properly briefed on the benefits to Britain of a successful EU-US trade deal, perhaps before the Foreign
	Secretary is next tempted to go on the airwaves and talk up the possibility of a British exit from the European Union?

David Lidington: The entire Government, since we came into office in May 2010, have made it a priority to increase the prosperity of the whole of Europe, including the United Kingdom, through a commitment to free trade—a priority that was sadly neglected under the Government in whom he served.

Middle East

Rob Wilson: What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for the middle east peace process.

Tobias Ellwood: We welcome the efforts to secure a ceasefire, which remains the best means of ending the current cycle of violence. I call upon Hamas, as I have already said, and all militant factions in Gaza to cease hostilities so that the bloodshed on both sides can stop.

Rob Wilson: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that there is no further escalation of violence in Gaza, that Israel acts in a proportionate and responsible manner, and that international aid and support gets through to the people who are suffering in Gaza?

Tobias Ellwood: We have increased our funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the main UN organisation operating in Gaza, by £5 million. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been communicating with the parties involved in Gaza, and indeed in Israel, to encourage them to listen to what Egypt is saying and to agree a ceasefire.

Louise Ellman: Securing a ceasefire is urgently needed to stop this terrible loss of life. Will discussions on a ceasefire include considering the future of the terror tunnels, from which Mumbai-type atrocities are being planned against Israeli civilians?

Tobias Ellwood: The immediate priority is to have a ceasefire in place, and then, as John Kerry has stated, we can move towards a longer term solution, which must include all aspects, including—dare I say it?—the territories. These must be considered following on from the ceasefire itself.

Arms Sales: Russia

Adrian Sanders: What discussions he has had with the French Government on arms sales to Russia; and if he will make a statement.

David Lidington: The United Kingdom has already suspended all such export licences to Russia where exports could be used against Ukraine. We have discussed the possibility of an EU-wide arms and defence exports embargo with the French Government, both bilaterally and at European Council and Council of Ministers meetings.

Adrian Sanders: I urge the Minister to press the French and other EU countries more on that, because it really is time we all put principle ahead of short-term economic interest and stopped arming the Russian regime.

David Lidington: The Prime Minister made the British Government’s position clear yesterday during his response to questions on his statement. It is obviously for the French Government to take that decision, which at the moment they plan to take in October this year, and to defend whatever decision they take.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Emulation of the brevity of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) is now required. I call Mr Barry Gardiner.

Barry Gardiner: The Foreign Secretary is very clear about the use of sanctions against Russia and about their potential efficacy. Why, therefore, has the Foreign Office consistently said in relation to Sri Lanka that it does not believe in applying sanctions there or in other parts of the world?

Mr Speaker: The French Government, arms sales, Russia; I am sure that there was some relevance to those subjects in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I am working hard to find it.

David Lidington: Our priority in dealing with the Government of Sri Lanka has been to secure an independent investigation into the serious reports of human rights abuses in the north of that country. The Prime Minister has championed that priority and we achieved considerable success in that regard at the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Mr Speaker: It was a good question; it was just the wrong one. I am afraid that my efforts have failed. Even the Clerks, in all their distinction, cannot remotely fathom the pertinence of the inquiry by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) to question No. 22, and I rather doubt whether the hon. Member for Torbay can either. But there we go—it is the last day, and there will be some latitude.

Topical Questions

Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Lidington: In addition to the crisis in Gaza, our focus is very much on Ukraine. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, our approach is that, first, we need to see the repatriation of the victims’ bodies and the beginning of an independent investigation of what happened to flight MH17. Secondly, we believe that Russia must stop providing supplies and training to the separatists. Thirdly, we need to reassess this country’s and the European Union’s long-term relationships with Russia. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is in Brussels today discussing exactly those matters with his European counterparts.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that the horrendous destruction of flight MH17 was a direct consequence of a regional crisis fomented by President Putin? Does he also agree that we must now move to tier 3 sanctions on defence, energy and banking? And, further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders), surely those Russian sailors in Saint-Nazaire should now return home immediately.

David Lidington: We are certainly among those countries that have been pressing for some time at European meetings for a tougher and more rigorous sanctions policy to be adopted by the European Union. Sadly, the crisis in Donetsk and Luhansk appears to have been fomented quite deliberately by the Russian authorities, to whom the separatists look for matériel, for arms and for moral encouragement. It is in the interests of all of Europe that Russia desists from that policy and seeks reconciliation.

Douglas Alexander: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on flight MH17. I also welcome whatever further steps can be agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council. In the light of recent developments, however, may I urge the Government urgently to seek an emergency meeting of the European Heads of Government? Does the Minister accept that, in reality, only the European Council is capable of taking the scale of diplomatic response that is increasingly obviously required?

David Lidington: We certainly do not rule out the necessity for that to happen, perhaps within a matter of days. I think it would be wise to assess the outcome of today’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting first, but the Prime Minister is alive to the possibility of such a meeting.

Jack Lopresti: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the stalled election process in Afghanistan is undermining the democratic institutions that so many of our brave men and women fought so hard for and sacrificed so much to deliver?

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the election process in Afghanistan. Abdullah Abdullah received 45% of the vote in the first round, and that figure remained the same in the second. Ashraf Ghani went from 31% in the first round to 56% in the second, with an extra million people voting. He threatened to form a breakaway Government, and we are grateful for the work of the United States, and of John Kerry in particular, on reconciling that matter. The votes are now being recounted and we look forward to the result.

Chi Onwurah: The BBC seems to have missed it, but 100,000 people marched through London on Saturday to protest against the terrible suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Smaller demonstrations are taking place every day, many will march in Newcastle on Saturday, and I have received hundreds of e-mails and letters on the subject. Will the Minister ensure that his counterparts in Israel understand the mounting sense of outrage among the British people?

Tobias Ellwood: The increased diplomatic pressure that is being placed on the situation, including by John Kerry going to the region and, indeed by our own Foreign Secretary and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, shows that there is a huge amount of growing international pressure to seek a solution. The Foreign Secretary has done his best to communicate with his counterparts in Israel, Egypt and, indeed, the Palestinian authorities. We hope for, and will work towards, a ceasefire as soon as possible.

Karen Lumley: Will the Minister congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on organising a trip to Bosnia next week, in which I will be taking part, to refurbish a centre for women affected by sexual violence in conflict, which is something in which the previous Foreign Secretary took a great interest?

David Lidington: I am very happy to congratulate both my hon. Friends on their commitment to that project, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) in particular on her tireless work to highlight the continued importance of this country’s relationship with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Bosnian Minister played a very important role at the recent summit to help prevent the use of sexual violence as an instrument of war. We need to learn the lessons of that experience.

Chris Evans: The NATO summit at the Celtic Manor in Newport is a real chance to put Wales’s leading cutting-edge businesses in the world’s shop window. However, concerns have been raised with me that not enough is being done to promote those Welsh businesses. In the run-up to the vital NATO summit, what are the Government going to do to ensure that Welsh business is promoted to the hilt before, during and after it?

David Lidington: I certainly believe that the NATO summit in Wales will provide an unparalleled opportunity to highlight not only Welsh business but the attractiveness of Wales as a destination for inward investment and for tourism. We saw how Northern Ireland benefited from the Enniskillen summit last year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my colleagues at the Wales Office have the issue very much on their list of key priorities at the moment.

Menzies Campbell: The Russian response to the downing of the aircraft has been a mixture of disingenuousness and paranoia, and they have abandoned realism. It has already been argued that steps should be taken to make them take a more realistic approach, but is there not a real challenge for the north Atlantic alliance, both with the European Union and with NATO, to ensure that we act in such a united and unified way that the Russians are in no doubt about the seriousness with which we take their conduct?

David Lidington: I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is important that the Atlantic alliance generally—this applies whether we are talking about NATO or the European Union—remains united, resolute and determined, because we face a very grave
	challenge. It is certainly the case that the NATO summit will need to give a high priority to a reassertion of article 5 of the doctrine of collective defence.

Jeremy Corbyn: What actions are the Foreign Office team taking to ensure consular access to Andargachew Tsege? He is an Ethiopian-born British citizen who was seized at Sanaa airport by Ethiopian officials on 23 June, sentenced to death in absentia by a court in Ethiopia and held at an undisclosed location in Ethiopia. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and me, he still has not had consular or legal access. Could the Foreign Office urgently contact the Ethiopian Government and ensure that access is obtained?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this concerning case. I reassure him that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the gentleman concerned gets consular access. I spoke to the Ethiopian Foreign Minister last Friday night, and my colleagues at the Department for International Development spoke to the Ethiopian Prime Minister. We continue to press the Ethiopian Government to get access. I have approved a letter to be sent to the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who are particularly interested in this case, to set out what continued action we intend to deliver.

David Heath: The Minister said earlier that Israel has the right to defend itself against missile attack, and I entirely agree, but he went on to say that the response must be proportionate. Is it not transparently obvious that the response is not proportionate, but grossly disproportionate and outwith international law? On that basis, will he not look again at the preferential trade arrangements that Israel enjoys at the moment?

Tobias Ellwood: We spoke about this outside the Chamber, and I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and views. The Prime Minister has spoken about the issues of proportionality, and I have mentioned my discussions with the Israeli ambassador. I see no need at the moment to look at any of the EU negotiations.

Chris Bryant: Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister about the Litvinenko case, and I am delighted to say that the Home Secretary’s has today announced a public inquiry, so let me press home the advantage. I also asked him yesterday about the Magnitsky case. Considering that the Americans have already done it and that other countries in Europe have done it, why on earth have we not introduced what the House demanded more than two years ago, which is a clear statement that those who were involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and in the corruption that he unveiled are not welcome in this country? That is now the eighth time I have asked.

David Lidington: We have made it very clear, whether we are talking about people from Russia or any other country, that someone against whom there is clear evidence of complicity in human rights abuses would not be welcome in the United Kingdom.

John Baron: Given the appalling events in eastern Ukraine and the fact that our EU neighbours seem reluctant to adopt a robust line against the bully in the playground, has the time not come for the UK to lead by example and to close our financial services to Russia?

David Lidington: I think that it will be important to make sure that whatever sanctions are imposed on Russian interests are effective and do not just lead to Russian money migrating somewhere else, and to make sure that they have a sound legal basis. That is what we are working to achieve. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we regard financial services as very much on the table in such discussions.

Jim Shannon: Human rights abuses and the persecution of Christians in Iran are at their worst levels for decades—second only to North Korea. Some 700 executions have taken place, with many of those people killed for their religious beliefs. What discussions has the Minister had with the Iranian Government about protecting Christians in Iran?

Tobias Ellwood: I mentioned earlier that our embassy in Iran is shortly to open; some technical issues still need to be resolved. Once it is open, there will be more and more opportunity to raise those very issues. Three concerns jump out immediately—freedom of expression, freedom of religion and rights for women—and I will pursue those issues when I have an opportunity, I hope, to visit Iran in the forthcoming period.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given the massive potential economic benefits from concluding a successful transatlantic free trade agreement and the fact that Britain is one of the leading international trading nations of the EU, would it not make sense for the UK to be granted the trade portfolio within the Commission?

David Lidington: There are a number of Commission portfolios for which our excellent candidate, my noble Friend Lord Hill, would be admirably qualified. As my hon. Friend knows, discussions are ongoing about who should fill which portfolio.

John Cryer: What undertakings can the Minister give that no British arms or equipment have found their way to ISIS?

Tobias Ellwood: I was hoping not to have to say this, but if I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details. I hope to be able to assure him that there have been no such cases, but I will certainly write to him with more details.

Andrew Percy: What assessment has the Minister made of the double war crime perpetrated by Hamas with regard to not only hiding themselves and their weaponry among the civilian population, but deliberately targeting and desiring the murder of innocent Israelis?

Tobias Ellwood: I mentioned earlier the important role that Hamas can play in organising and agreeing to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, it is the case that it has used
	some of its weapon systems in civilian areas, which has led to too many deaths. As we have said again and again, I hope that all parties can now come to an agreement on a ceasefire, led by the Egyptians.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr David Crausby.

David Crausby: What is the difference between a Russian Government who deserve sanctions for their involvement in bringing down
	MH17 and an Israeli Government who refuse to apologise for bombing hospitals and killing children who were playing football on the beach?

David Lidington: We have to look at each case on its merits. With regard to Russia, the Prime Minister made our position very clear in the House yesterday. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the desperate need in Gaza is for a ceasefire and a cessation of the appalling violence and loss of life among men, women and children on both sides. The sooner that happens, the better. Our diplomatic efforts are designed to help bring that about.

Birmingham Schools

Nicky Morgan: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the so-called Trojan horse letter. The report by Peter Clarke was laid before the House this morning.
	The abiding principle of the Government’s education policy is that schools should prepare children for life in modern Britain and, indeed, the modern world. Schools should open doors for children, not close them. That is what parents want and expect. We should be clear that that is as true for the overwhelming majority of British Muslims as for anyone else.
	As a Government, we strongly support the right of Muslim parents to be involved in their children’s schools and their commitment to take leading roles in public life. What has been so upsetting about the history in this small handful of schools is that the success of efforts to encourage more British Muslims to take up governing roles has been damaged by the actions of a few. I sincerely hope that parents will continue to come forward to serve as governors and to take leadership roles in schools.
	However, what Peter Clarke found is disturbing. His report sets out compelling evidence of a determined effort by people with a shared ideology to gain control of the governing bodies of a small number of schools in Birmingham. Teachers have said that they fear that children are learning to be intolerant of difference and diversity. Instead of enjoying a broadening and enriching experience in school, young people are having their horizons narrowed and are being denied the opportunity to flourish in a modern, multicultural Britain.
	There has been no evidence of direct radicalisation or violent extremism, but there is a clear account in the report of people in positions of influence in these schools, who have a restricted and narrow interpretation of their faith, not promoting fundamental British values and failing to challenge the extremist views of others. Individuals associated with the Park View Educational Trust, in particular, have destabilised head teachers, sometimes leading to their resignation or removal. Particularly shocking is the evidence of the social media discussion of the Park View Brotherhood group, whose actions
	“betray a collective mind-set that can fairly be described as an intolerant Islamist approach which denies the validity of alternative beliefs.”
	Evidence collected by Peter Clarke shows that Birmingham city council was aware of the practices that were subsequently outlined in the Trojan horse letter long before it surfaced. On Friday, the council published its report into the problems by Ian Kershaw. He concluded that in some cases the council was a vehicle for promoting some of these problems, with head teachers being eased out through the profligate use of compromise agreements, rather than being supported. The council’s inability to address the problems had been exacerbated, the report found, by a culture of not wanting to address difficult problems where there was a risk of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.
	We are all in the debt of Peter Clarke for the rigour that he brought to his investigation and for the forensic clarity of his findings. We are also in the debt of my predecessor, who is now the Chief Whip, for his determination in the face of criticism to invite Mr Clarke to take on this task. No Government and no Home Secretary have done more to tackle extremism than this Government and this Home Secretary. In the conclusions of the Government’s extremism taskforce last year, the Prime Minister made it clear that we need to deal with the dangers posed by extremism well before it becomes violent. Peter Clarke’s report offers us important recommendations on how to address that challenge in schools.
	Our first priority after Ofsted reported its findings last month was to take action on the schools in special measures. The members of the Park View Educational Trust have resigned, enabling outstanding head teachers from the wider Birmingham community to take on the governance of the trust and ensure a strong future for its three academies. My noble Friend Lord Nash has today written to the Oldknow Academy Trust to notify it that I will terminate its funding agreement in the light of its manifest breaches. A new interim executive board has replaced the failing governing body of Saltley school. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for their work with those schools.
	The second priority is the progress that must be made by Birmingham city council. I have spoken to Sir Albert Bore, and we have agreed that I will appoint a new education commissioner within the council to oversee its actions to address the fundamental criticisms in the Kershaw and Clarke reports, while building resilience in the system as a whole. The commissioner will report jointly to Birmingham’s chief executive and to me. If we are unable to make rapid progress with those new arrangements, I will not hesitate to use my powers to intervene further.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has also spoken to Sir Albert Bore about the need to address the wider weaknesses that these events have highlighted in the governance culture of the council. They have agreed that Sir Bob Kerslake will lead a review of governance in the city council, reporting with recommendations for both the short and medium term by the end of 2014.
	I want also to ensure that our system of standards and accountability for all schools should better withstand the threats of extremism of all kinds. The National College for Teaching and Leadership will take the extensive evidence provided by Peter Clarke so that its misconduct panel can consider whether any teachers involved should be barred from the profession. Advice to the panel already provides that actions that undermine fundamental British values should be viewed as misconduct. I will strengthen that advice to make clear that exposing pupils to extremist speakers should be regarded as a failure to protect pupils and promote British values. I will also strengthen the advice to make it clear that prohibition from teaching should be imposed while such cases are investigated, and a prohibition without review made where misconduct is proved. 
	We have already published a consultation on strengthening independent school standards, which apply also to academies and free schools, including a requirement to actively promote British values.Ofsted will inspect
	how well all schools are actively promoting fundamental British values through their curriculum.We will provide further guidance on how to improve the social, moral, spiritual and cultural development of pupils, which is also inspected by Ofsted. We will strengthen our regulations to bar unsuitable persons from running independent schools, including academies and free schools. Anyone barred in that way will also be prohibited from being governor in any maintained school.
	Peter Clarke recommends that Ofsted should be more sensitive to the signs of emerging problems. I believe that key evidence can be hidden from inspectors and the inspection regime needs to be strengthened further. My predecessor asked Her Majesty’s chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, to look at the feasibility and practicalities of introducing no-notice inspections for schools. I am pleased that the chief inspector has already decided, and notified schools earlier this month, that next term he would be broadening the criteria Ofsted uses to judge whether unannounced inspection is required for a particular school.HMCI believes there are advantages to extending no-notice inspection to all schools, and will use his consultation in the autumn on changes to the 2015 inspection regime to consult on whether universal no notice, or a different change to the no-notice regime, should be made.
	Her Majesty’s chief inspector has also highlighted the need to ensure that all state-funded schools meet the requirement to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.He is clear that this is an area where inspectors will pay more attention, and the autumn consultation will seek views on whether Ofsted needs to do more to ensure that all schools meet their requirements to teach a broad and balanced curriculum.
	My predecessor commissioned a review by the permanent secretary on whether the Department missed historical warnings in Birmingham, and he will report to me later in the summer. The Department has already ensured increased scrutiny of new academy sponsors and of the governance arrangements for schools seeking to convert to academy status. We have appointed regional schools commissioners backed by boards of local outstanding head teachers who will bring local intelligence to decision making on academies. I will now improve the Department’s due diligence and counter-extremism division’s capacity, as Peter Clarke recommends. I will ensure that the Department works in partnership with the Home Office, Department for Communities and Local Government and other agencies to improve the intelligence available to us on whether other parts of the country are similarly vulnerable to the threats that have been exposed in Birmingham.
	The report also raises questions and makes specific recommendations about other important areas, including the role of the Association of Muslim Schools UK, further action on improving school governance, how to communicate better the role of local authorities with all schools—maintained, academies and independent—on safeguarding and extremism, and how we can be sure that all schools are meeting their statutory duties. I want to reflect further on those issues, as well as on all specific recommendations in the report published today, and return to the House in the autumn on steps to be taken on those matters.
	Peter Clarke’s report confirms the pattern of serious failing found by Ofsted’s inspection reports, and identifies
	how the actions of a small number of individuals in some schools represented a serious risk to the safeguarding of children and the quality of education being provided. We are taking action to put things right, and I will not hesitate to act in any schools where serious concerns come to light in future.
	I want to be clear, however, that those who seek to use this case to undermine the Government’s reform agenda will be disappointed. Today there are more than 4,000 academies and free schools serving pupils and parents up and down the country. They are helping thousands of young people, regardless of their background, to unlock their potential and become valuable and rounded members of society. The expansion of the academy programme has been one of the great success stories of this Government, and the actions of a small number of individuals will not divert us from that path. The programme of reform goes on, and I commend this statement to the House.

Tristram Hunt: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of Peter Clarke.
	At the heart of the report is a devastating indictment of the Government’s schools policy, and the Government’s response is a structural admission of failure. Today, the Secretary of State has announced a new schools commissioner for Birmingham and endorsed Labour party policy. The free market model of schooling, pioneered by her predecessor, has been sunk by the events in Birmingham. Why not have a schools commissioner or a director of schools standards for Liverpool, for Manchester or for London?
	Peter Clarke’s report reveals that coalition education policy is bust and has fomented the crisis in Birmingham. Clarke states:
	“In theory, academies are accountable to the secretary of state, but in practice the accountability can almost amount to benign neglect where educational and financial performance seems to indicate everything is fine.”
	However, we now know that everything was not fine. The truth of the matter is this: the chaotic, deregulated and fractured education policy the Government have pursued has increased the risks of radicalisation in English schools. Let us be clear: in 2010, the Department for Education was told by a senior Birmingham head teacher what was going on in Birmingham schools, and for four years it failed to act. I call that malign neglect.
	First, will the Secretary of State tell us more about how the Department for Education inquiry into ministerial failings is proceeding? What evidence has it taken? Has Lord Hill given evidence? Sir Albert Bore has apologised on behalf of Birmingham city council, so will the Secretary of State apologise for her predecessor’s oversights?
	Peter Clarke’s report heavily criticises the Government’s policy
	“by which single schools are able to convert to academy status”.
	Therefore, secondly, the Secretary of State’s predecessor thought that the security bar should be lowered for those seeking to convert schools to academy status, as in the case of Park View and Golden Hillock, compared with the bar for those seeking to establish free schools. Does she share that view?
	Crucially, Peter Clarke finds that there was no
	“suitable system for holding the new academies accountable for financial and management issues”.
	He urges a clearer system for
	“detecting changes in governance to make academies more effective in responding to warning signs”.
	The commissioner is a right step, but will the Secretary of State admit that she cannot run tens of thousands of schools from behind a desk in Whitehall, which her predecessor failed to realise? Thirdly, therefore, will she now drop the dogma and agree to the Labour party plans for directors of schools standards—not the old local authority model, but a system of local oversight and accountability to give parents, teachers and governors a strong voice to support all schools and challenge low standards?
	One disturbing element of Clarke’s report is his account of the introduction of an “intolerant and aggressive” Islamist ethos in Birmingham schools. Allegations of radical extremism and terrorism have proven to be unfounded, but there should be no place in an English school for segregation and the inculcation of a politicised version of Islam. It is right that schools in high-poverty and minority ethnic communities focus on achieving excellent academic results, but they must also provide the kind of rounded education that will ensure the success of their pupils in modern, multicultural Britain.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s support for changes for a “broad and balanced curriculum” in criteria for judgments by Ofsted. I am happy to support her framework discussions for no-notice inspections, and the misconduct reforms. However, one of the most pressing reforms we need to look at is our system of school governors—Clarke’s recommendation 10.
	Beginning with the Labour party’s academies schools programme, successive Governments have sought to increase school autonomy. That has placed more onerous responsibilities on governing bodies without necessarily providing the relevant training and support. We do not want to overburden governors—we need to attract applicants for the job, particularly from minority ethnic communities—but we need to ensure a more professional, non-executive function in these roles. If the Secretary of State wishes to pursue a reform policy in that direction, she will have our support.
	The story of Birmingham is the story of systemic failings in school oversight and accountability. The chickens have come home to roost on the Government’s free-for-all education policy. In our great second city, it is parents and pupils who have suffered the consequences.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some parts of his response to my statement. It is a great irony that in the middle he talked about dropping the dogma, given that he started by talking about a “devastating indictment” of schools policy. I refute that utterly, as do all Government Members.
	I am glad the hon. Gentleman welcomed the move to have a broad and balanced curriculum, and for his support for no-notice inspections, on which we will consult, and on teachers’ misconduct. However, I think
	he misses the overall point. This is not a matter on which to be partisan. I think we can agree that there is absolutely no place for extremism in our schools, which is what he said. But in relation to governance, he will perhaps recall the point that Sir Peter Clarke made on page 90 of the report:
	“I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with governance generally”—[Interruption.]
	I suggest the hon. Gentleman reads page 90 again. Sir Peter Clarke went on:
	“However, there appears to be a problem with certain governors in some Birmingham schools.”
	What the hon. Gentleman failed to appreciate, in the tone of his remarks, was that this was a determined effort by a small number of people with a shared ideology to gain control of a small number of schools, irrespective of the interests of the local community. He is absolutely right to say that at the heart of this is the education of children and support for teachers and parents. We should start with children, not with faith.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the permanent secretary’s review in the Department. I am not going to pre-empt that review. I have said that I will come back to the House and discuss it when the permanent secretary reports. The hon. Gentleman talked about the schools commissioner, and I am glad he welcomes that appointment. Sir Albert Bore has agreed that we will work together on the appointment, who the commissioner will report to and the plan that will be put into place.
	This is not a matter on which to be partisan. We must recognise the extremism that a small number of people thought they could perpetuate in our schools, much to the upset of members of the Muslim communities in Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the work that the Government, the Home Secretary and all Ministers on the Government Benches have done to tackle anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia. I am sorry that the tone of his remarks does not reflect the seriousness of the situation.

Graham Stuart: May I, too, congratulate Peter Clarke and thank him for his work? We must ensure that we have a proportionate response. The Education Committee will be taking evidence from Peter Clarke, Ian Kershaw, head teachers and others in our inquiry. We will produce a report and make recommendations in the autumn. Will the Secretary of State delay her formal response to the recommendations in Peter Clarke’s report until the Select Committee has produced its report, which I hope will be as early in the autumn as we can manage?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for his recognition of this extremely serious matter. I welcome the Select Committee’s investigations. I will have to reflect on the time line, but clearly the Committee’s evidence and recommendations will be very important in coming to a full conclusion and response to the recommendations made in this report.

David Blunkett: I did not have the opportunity yesterday, so may I welcome the Secretary of State to the most rewarding job in Government? I wish her well.
	Three weeks ago, the Education Committee moved towards a consensus that oversight between the Secretary of State and schools needed to be strengthened, with
	certainly more than eight commissioners and by not relying purely on the inspectorate. Does she accept that many trusts and governing bodies are self-selecting and self-perpetuating? Would it therefore be appropriate to work with head teachers and the National Governors Association to find better ways to ensure that the selection of governors, and the accountability to which they are bound, is delivered in a way that provides the kind of trust that she and I, and this House, want in the future?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much indeed for his warm welcome, which is very much appreciated. He is absolutely right that this is the most exciting job in Government. It is about protecting our children’s futures, and that is what is at the heart of the report into the failings that have been identified.
	The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we recognise and value the dedication of the hundreds of thousands of governors up and down the country who give up their free time. We thank them for that. This issue relates to a small group of governors with a particular ideology that they wanted to push, and who wanted to destabilise the heads and the teachers. We welcome all efforts to strengthen governing bodies. Ofsted will be looking at governance arrangements much more closely in its inspections.

Andrew Mitchell: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and warmly congratulate her on joining the Cabinet.
	Is it not clear, as my right hon. Friend says, that there is no evidence of radicalisation or violent extremism, and that it is important to say that clearly for the vast majority of Birmingham’s Muslim community who make such a brilliant contribution to life in our second city? Should not all involved now focus on the key remedy for the future, which lies in clear lines of governance accountability and responsibility, both for the Department for Education and Birmingham city council?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend very much indeed. He is absolutely right: it is worth reiterating again that, as Peter Clarke says, there has been no evidence of direct radicalisation or violent extremism. I know from working with the Muslim community in my own constituency that it is safe to say that this is not what the vast majority of parents wanted to happen to the schools in question, or for the education of their children. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to remember that.
	My right hon. Friend is also right that, as a result of the two reports, there are a number of lessons to be learned by various bodies, including, obviously, my own Department, Birmingham city council and Ofsted. There are wider lessons to be learned in relation to the governance of schools.

Khalid Mahmood: I welcome the Kershaw and the Clarke reports, and the appointment of the commissioner for Birmingham, which is necessary not just in Birmingham but across the country. I would like to use parliamentary privilege if I may, Mr Speaker, to name a few individuals about whom I think further investigation needs to be made: David Hughes, a former council official; Les Lawrence, a former cabinet member in Birmingham; Jackie Hughes
	and Kyra Butwell; and all local authority officers who colluded with this huge tragedy of keeping these schools in a position they should not have been in, and who by not listening to the parents, governors and teachers who demanded action were not prepared to act on their behalf.

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I appreciated the conversation I had with him this morning. The Department will of course take on board the information he outlines. As part of the new commissioner’s appointment, we will pursue those names, and there may be others involved in what has happened. He makes an important point, which is that what happened was the destabilisation of the teaching staff in those schools. When one reads the reports and realises what has been going on against the wishes of the vast majority of teachers, one sees that when the teachers, and head teachers in particular, turned to the council, they did not get the support they should have received. That is something we all have to reflect on.

John Hemming: I support equal marriage, but a number of my constituents, both Muslim and non-Muslim, do not. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is very important to make a distinction between people with socially conservative views, and those who have extremist or divisive views? We must not be seen to be attacking people with socially conservative views.

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is an agreed Government definition of extremism, and that is the one Peter Clarke used in his report. However, I return to my original point: from all my conversations with the Birmingham community, it is clear that the vast majority were in no way involved with, or supportive of, anything that happened in these schools; it was a small group of people pushing a particular ideology, and it should always be remembered that the wider community deserves our greatest support.

Liam Byrne: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but it is important that nobody shirks their responsibilities. Park View trust was an academy for almost two years, and chapter nine of the report paints a sorry picture of the Department’s oversight. I hope she thinks it appropriate to apologise for those failures today and that she asks Les Lawrence to do the same.
	I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an education commissioner for the city, as I suggested to her on Friday. The commissioner’s first task is to ensure that teachers and officials who should not be in their jobs either resign or are removed, but the bigger task is to come together, with the city of Birmingham and the parents and pupils of Park View school, to rebuild trust and the pride of pupils and to ensure that the school’s reputation is turned around. Its best years lie ahead.

Nicky Morgan: Let me begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended: absolutely, we need to look forward. Of course, the Department, Birmingham city council, Ofsted and others involved need to learn the lessons, but he is right: we are talking about children’s education, and we need to look to the future—to rebuild the
	schools and give parents confidence, particularly when families return to school in September, that lessons have been learned and that the teaching staff involved have been dealt with.
	I am pleased that the new members of the Park View education trust are taking swift action to ensure that the behaviours reported by Peter Clarke have no place in schools. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I am assured that the trust will be instigating disciplinary proceedings where appropriate. Also, the National College for Teaching and Leadership will take extensive evidence from Peter Clarke so that its misconduct panel can consider whether any teachers involved should be barred from the profession.

Julian Lewis: When the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and I gave evidence to the Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce, we emphasised the need for permanent cross-departmental co-operation. While I am pleased that the Secretary of State says she will work closely on this matter with the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government, will she try to persuade her Cabinet colleagues that it would be sensible to set up some sort of permanent machinery so that we can head off these sorts of episodes, rather than merely reacting to them?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for the intentions behind his question. He is right that I have mentioned the close working between my Department, the Home Office and DCLG, which will, of course, continue, and it is right to pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, who set up the division in the Department looking at extremism. However, I say this to my hon. Friend: let us wait and see; let me reflect on everything that has come out of the two reports and work out the best way for the Government to tackle these problems.

Bill Esterson: Ofsted inspects local authorities separately from local authority schools. The organisations that run academy chains perform similar functions to local authorities, but Ofsted is only allowed to inspect the schools, not the chains that run them. Given the concerns about what happened in Birmingham and, as the Minister for Schools acknowledged yesterday, elsewhere, will the Secretary of State now accept the need for the inspection of academy chains as well as the schools within them?

Nicky Morgan: I am going to look at that, as I think it needs to be considered.

Simon Wright: Will the Secretary of State consider the merits of a minimum curriculum entitlement for all state-funded schools, so that communities, parents and governors are in no doubt about what is meant by a “broad and balanced curriculum”, which every child should be entitled to?

Nicky Morgan: I mentioned the phrase “broad and balanced curriculum” in my statement, and Ofsted’s new framework will contain more guidance on that. The Clarke report identified a narrowing of the curriculum, which I discussed with Sir Michael Wilshaw when I met him yesterday. We also discussed how to task inspectors
	with investigating undue narrowing and, in particular, when they go into schools, with ensuring that schools have not changed things in readiness for the inspection.

Richard Burden: The Clarke and Kershaw reviews showed serious failings by Birmingham city council going back many years and not confined to one administration. Although it is right that the city council has apologised and said it will co-operate with the findings of both reviews, in the light of concerns raised in both reviews about the Department, why is the Secretary of State so relaxed that her own investigations will not report until late summer? In advance of their reporting, how can she have confidence to say “full speed ahead” with her education reforms, particularly when fragmentation between government, local authorities and others is a recurring theme in both reports?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman should not conclude that I am relaxed about this in any way, shape or form, but I think it is right to give the permanent secretary time to conduct and conclude the review. Since my appointment, I have seen no evidence of fragmentation; there is close working at all levels between schools, councils and organisations such as Ofsted, and that will continue under this reform process.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tolerant should never be obliged to tolerate the intolerant; that the values of tolerance, freedom, democracy and the rule of law are the attributes of this country that make it so welcoming for many immigrant communities; and that robustly teaching those values will enhance and strengthen community values and relations, not weaken or undermine them?

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In defining fundamental British values, as he said, we talk about democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. From my work with the Muslim community in my constituency, I know how important mutual respect and tolerance are and how much of it there is already. Returning to my earlier point, that is the tragedy of what happened in Birmingham: this was a small group of people pushing a particular ideology. The wider Muslim community, and the community generally in Birmingham, would not have recognised what this group was trying to do.

Shabana Mahmood: All the reports into the Trojan horse letter find no evidence that children in our city have been turned into extremists or radicalised, which is welcome, but they highlight shocking and appalling governance failures of the most serious nature that we must all work together to fix. Is the Secretary of State aware that the way in which the whole affair has been handled and reported, with the leaks and the priority given by key figures to getting their message out first, has led to children at these schools being stigmatised, bullied and terrified that they will not get places at college or university or jobs because they have one of these schools on their
	CVs? What will she do to put this right and send a clear signal that she will be putting Birmingham school kids first?

Nicky Morgan: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s work on this process and the reports. She is absolutely right that we need to learn the lessons from the reports and that issues need to be addressed by all of us in the education system, locally, within the Department and by organisations such as Ofsted. I return to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne): how do we move forward and help the schools to move forward? Getting the right teaching staff in place, appointing the commissioner to work with Birmingham city council and getting in leading head teachers, particularly to the trust where the members have resigned, will be a very good start. This will require many months, if not years, of working, but I am convinced that we can turn this around.

Rob Wilson: I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position and hope she treads a similar path to her outstanding predecessor. In that light, what approach does she favour in attempting to combat extremism—simply beating back the crocodiles that come too close to the boat, or draining the swamp?

Nicky Morgan: I believe in looking forward and learning lessons; appreciating the work that I and many Members across the House do with our Muslim communities; recognising that the vast majority did not want or support what was happening in their schools; and looking to my Department and Birmingham city council to sort this out in order to provide the best possible education for children, which, we must not forget, is at the heart of this.

Jack Dromey: May I first disassociate myself from the shameful remarks of the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson)?
	What happened in a handful of Birmingham schools was absolutely wrong, but the Secretary of State is absolutely right not to tar the entire Muslim community with the same brush. Does she accept that the problems in Birmingham are deep seated, long standing, and have involved all three political parties in successive administrations? Given that the council was right to say sorry, does she recognise, in the spirit of moving forward, that the Government should also express their regret? Will she now work with Birmingham to learn the lessons of what went wrong, to put things right in both Whitehall and the town hall, and to ensure that the interests of schoolchildren in Birmingham are put first?

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think that I have made it very clear that the interests of schoolchildren and their families must be at the heart of this. That is what our education system is all about. It is about preparing our young people for modern Britain and the modern world. The tragedy is that that has not happened to some of our children in Birmingham.
	I also think that I have been very clear about failings at various levels and in various organisations. I will certainly be working with Birmingham city council, in particular through the new commissioner. My right
	hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is issuing a written ministerial statement on wider working and wider lessons for the council at about this time. It has been discussed with Sir Albert Bore, and I believe that it is welcomed by him and his team.

Peter Bone: I thank the excellent new Secretary of State for coming to the House and updating us. She referred in her statement to fundamental British values. Is there a definition of those somewhere in Government documents that we can look at?

Nicky Morgan: There certainly is. Fundamental British values are defined as
	“democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs”.
	I have taken that definition from the Ofsted inspection handbook, but I suspect that it is in many other publications as well, and so it should be.

Gisela Stuart: Because the problems in Birmingham were so long standing, I think that the solutions will not be straightforward. I was struck by the Secretary of State’s observation that Ofsted should be more sensitive to the signs of emerging problems, but, as problems emerge, who do governors and head teachers turn to? The difficulty in Birmingham was that they did not have anyone to turn to, and I am not sure that making Ofsted the organisation to turn to is the answer either. Will the Secretary of State flesh this out a little more? Where does she think the remedies for those emerging problems can be identified promptly, rather than at the late stage at which they would be identified by Ofsted?

Nicky Morgan: I agree with the hon. Lady. As I said earlier, I think that one of the tragedies was the fact that many very good head teachers, teaching at outstanding schools, were somehow removed from the system by the governors involved. They did not have anyone to turn to, and when they did turn to someone, they were not taken seriously.
	The Government recently announced the creation of eight regional school commissioners. Below them will be elected head teacher boards, which will consist of outstanding head teachers. I suggest that they will be the best people for teachers to turn to in the first instance, but I shall be happy to consider the hon. Lady’s comments further.

David Ward: I welcome the recognition of what the Secretary of State has described as British values, which I would describe as liberal values.In the context of protecting people from extremist views, I am still concerned about the use of the word “extremism”. If what was taking place in the schools was not an example of extremism—and that has been stated—what example of extremism were these schoolchildren vulnerable to in their homes and their local communities? May I also ask how much of what was taking place would have been okay if it had taken place in faith schools?

Nicky Morgan: I admire the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to grab fundamental British values for the Liberal party, but I do not think he will blame me if I try to resist it.
	The definition of extremism is in the Prevent strategy, and, actually, what Peter Clarke’s report says is that there was extremism, but no radicalism or extremism leading to violence. Extremism is defined as being
	“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our armed forces, whether in this country or overseas.”
	The hon. Gentleman may not have had a chance to read the whole report yet, but I suspect that when he does, and when he sees some of the comments that have been swapped on the WhatsApp social media site, he—like many other Members—will be very shocked.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State may not remember, but I took the Education Committee, when I was chairing it, to Birmingham for a whole week. At that time, under Tim Brighouse, Birmingham was the most improved education authority in the country. What I learnt—what we all learnt—was that the Muslim population in Birmingham, like the Muslim population everywhere else, want good education for their children, and they want it for boys and for girls.
	I have not had time to study the report yet, but I can say that we need to detect the minority of Muslim opinion that is coming from, who knows, Saudi Arabia or somewhere. This is not just a Birmingham question. We must be aware of it, and alert to it. I have visited many faith schools of this type, and I know that we must be careful to ensure that girls are treated on a fundamentally equal basis to boys. They should never be disadvantaged in respect of their education in this country.

Nicky Morgan: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no place for segregation of boys and girls in British schools, and girls must be given every possible opportunity to do as well and achieve as much as, if not more than, boys. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are especially welcome on a day on which the Prime Minister is holding a girl summit, which is focusing particularly on early forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
	I do not think that I was in the House when the hon. Gentleman was Chairman of the Education Committee, but I am glad to hear that his visit to Birmingham went well. One of the issues is that although some of the schools there were outstanding, the problems still occurred. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we cannot let up in trying to identify the problems. That is why I welcome the preventing extremism unit that has been set up in the Department, and why I will be expanding it.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The truth is that, in some areas of our country, it is difficult to recruit people of quality to participate in governing bodies, which makes such bodies vulnerable to a takeover by a narrow interest. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent on all of us who have leadership
	roles in our communities, including all Members of the House of Commons, to inspire and enthuse people who are interested in becoming school governors?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Being a school governor is an important role. What we do not want to do is make that role so burdensome that we put off really good people who would bring with them the skills that our schools need. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that those of us who are in positions in public life, such as Members of Parliament and councillors, should do all that we can to talent-spot and recommend good people to be school governors, because our schools need them.

Lyn Brown: Does the Secretary of State regret her predecessor’s decision to remove the requirement for Ofsted to inspect the duty of all maintained schools to promote community cohesion, and will she now consider restoring it?

Nicky Morgan: I will touch on that with Sir Michael Wilshaw, but we should be clear about the fact that when something is on a list of things that Ofsted or anyone else must inspect, the organisation concerned must genuinely understand and inspect it, and not just tick the box.

Eric Ollerenshaw: There is a very complex mix here. For me, it includes some of the failed multicultural policies of the 1980s, political correctness gone mad, local party politics, and sheer religious ignorance. It will take some sensitivity and time to sort all that out. In the short term, however, may I ask the new Secretary of State not to take on a new bureaucracy—as promised by the Opposition—but to look to the professionalism of individual teachers, and consider some possible means of enabling them to report any individual concerns directly to the Department?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is a very complex mix of issues at work, many of which have been present for a long, long time. He is also right to draw attention to the importance of the professionalism of teachers all over the country, some of whom, obviously, identified some of the problems. Those teachers should know that there are mechanisms allowing them to report their concerns, which include the ability to come directly to the Department, where those concerns will be taken seriously.
	I do not know whether my hon. Friend, like me, listened to the excellent head teacher of Anderton Park primary school in Birmingham on the radio this morning. I thought that she was outstanding, and exemplified the professionalism and expertise of heads and other teachers in Birmingham and elsewhere.

Nicholas Dakin: In stressing the role of local head teachers on regional boards, the Secretary of State appears to recognise the need for local oversight of schools, but the position is still confused. Dividing the country into eight hardly achieves that localism. Will she clarify the role that the new schools commissioner for Birmingham will have in relation to the regional commissioner for the west midlands? Who will be in charge in that area?

Nicky Morgan: I have a feeling that it was a Minister in the last Government, John Prescott, who really liked regional government, and regional government can work. The point is that this commissioner will be working in relation to Birmingham, and will work with the west midlands regional school commissioner. They will be working together—everyone is pulling in the same direction—to secure the best possible education for our children in schools.

Neil Carmichael: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new appointment. Does this matter not remind us of the central importance of the role of governors in our schools? Does it not also remind us, therefore, of the need to focus on the skills of those governors, rather than stakeholder representation and so forth? First and foremost, the need is to make sure governors can speak to their communities and run their schools with confidence and with power.

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is entirely right that we want governing bodies to have all the necessary skills. We have recently changed the rules on the appointment of governors, who must now be appointed solely on the basis of the skills that they bring to contribute to the success of the school. That is absolutely critical.

Pat Glass: Peter Clarke now recommends that the Department for Education review the process by which schools are able to convert to academy status and become multi-agency trusts, and calls for greater transparency in the system. Will the Secretary of State now lift the veil of secrecy that her predecessor threw over the whole process of academisation and creation of free schools, because this report clearly identifies that that has contributed to these problems?

Nicky Morgan: I am not sure about a veil of secrecy, but we will look again at our processes in these areas. We have taken action to strengthen checks on academy conversion, including by extending due diligence checks on those running academies and those schools converting to academy status. In light of the report’s findings, we will want to keep those processes under review.

Andrew Stephenson: What Peter Clarke found was shocking, and I am pleased to see the swift action from the Government. While everyone will agree that we need to root out and stamp out extremism in our schools, many parents I spoke to over the weekend who wish their children to have a faith-based education were concerned that this could be used as an excuse for the Government to U-turn on their long-standing commitment to our faith-based schools. Can I have my right hon. Friend’s assurance that that will not be the case?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend certainly has my assurance on that. I totally approve of, and support, the role of faith-based schools in our system. My hon. Friend might want to know that none of the schools inspected by Ofsted were faith schools.

Diana Johnson: Will the Secretary of State agree to publish an overview of the work the Department has done on the Government’s Prevent strategy since 2010?

Nicky Morgan: I will certainly consider it, and I will let the hon. Lady know.

Julian Smith: As well as the counter-extremism unit, my right hon. Friend’s predecessor put in place a whole set of measures for looking at barring teachers, making funding more difficult to exclude poor schools, and having no-notice inspections. Is it not vital that we reassure parents through the action that this Government have already taken?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is entirely right. My predecessor certainly put in place a number of robust strategies to deal with this issue, and Ofsted has increased its use of no-notice inspections, particularly where it is concerned about behaviour or deteriorating results.

Heidi Alexander: The problems in Birmingham schools are serious and undoubtedly need to be dealt with, as do all cases of poor governance, mismanagement and misconduct. In London people are concerned about the £2 million fraud within the Haberdashers’ Aske’s academy chain. How many more schools will need to be found wanting before this Government accept that their systems of accountability and oversight are not up to the job?

Nicky Morgan: I utterly disagree with the hon. Lady. Schools have more accountability and are inspected more rigorously under this Government than they ever have been before, and the minute the Department is aware of any problems in schools, it will take swift action, as we have seen in relation to the schools in Birmingham.

Steven Baker: In diverse places such as High Wycombe dedicated people have worked hard for many years to identify shared values and build harmonious communities, which often centre on our schools. [Interruption.] Will the Government take steps to ensure that a realistic concern is not allowed to tip into a panic which undermines the positive practices and outcomes which have been won after so much effort?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I heard sniggers from the Opposition Benches about the words he used about his constituency. If Opposition Members have no idea about the diversity of the community in High Wycombe, frankly they should visit it. [Interruption.]
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in relation to the communities in High Wycombe and he is absolutely right. We want a steady and firm but fair response to the findings of the Peter Clarke report. There are some important findings and I go back to my initial point: this is a small group of people in a small number of schools, community relations are critical, and this Government have done more than any other to tackle anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Brennan, you were a most effective vocalist for the celebrated band MP4 at the concert in Speaker’s House last week, but today your role is to nod supportively when your boss is speaking. Nothing else is required.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: What an embarrassment of riches! I call Mr Bob Stewart.

Bob Stewart: Oh dear! Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I totally support the idea of teaching British values in schools, but is there a pamphlet or booklet instructing teachers exactly what are the British values they ought to espouse and how to teach them?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that. The list I read out before is, as I said, in the Ofsted inspection handbook. I understand that schools refer to it, but I will certainly see whether there are any other ways in which this is communicated.

Richard Graham: Four years ago, with great assistance from the Secretary of State’s predecessor and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)—it is good to see him back—the new Gloucester academy was established and a multi-faith chaplaincy created, where an Anglican and a Muslim, Chris Blockley and Rafiq Patel, successfully served the pastoral and faith needs of the school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a positive way to foster integrated schools and communities, with a focus on broadening, not narrowing, minds, building bridges, not barriers, and avoiding the dangers identified in Peter Clarke’s report, so that all children grow up knowing that what they have in common is much greater than any cultural or faith differences?

Nicky Morgan: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and it sounds to me that Gloucester academy is both excellent and has thought its way through these issues and come up with a winning solution. By the sound of it, it typifies one of the fundamental British values I have already mentioned—tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs and mutual respect—and long may that continue.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and the vigour she and her predecessor have brought to tackling the issue of extremism in our schools, but may I urge
	her not to listen to those who are seeking to use this case to undermine the Government’s reform agenda, which has seen such a positive expansion of academies?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend. He knows me well enough to know that I do not listen to the siren voices from the Opposition Benches. As I said yesterday, I remain committed to the Government’s reform agenda, but the most important thing at the heart of all this is the education of our children, their future and making sure that they are able to take their place in a modern Britain and a modern world. That is exactly what the Department, working with teachers, head teachers and governors across the country, is focused on.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Mr Speaker: I hope the House now has a ready appetite for the rare delicacy which is the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).

Philip Hollobone: In my right hon. Friend’s statement, she made reference to the council’s own report by Ian Kershaw which concluded that the council’s inability to address these problems had been exacerbated “by a culture of not wanting to address difficult problems where there was a risk of accusations of racism or Islamophobia.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a chilling effect which prevents effective local government governance or effective governance in schools, where people do not have the confidence to tackle issues involving ethnic minorities because of the risk of being accused of being racist? How are her Department and the Department for Communities and Local Government going to come together to give such people the confidence they need to tackle these issues head-on?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that part of the report. It will be the experience of all Members on both sides of the House that, when dealing with issues in their communities, if we ignore a problem, it does not go away; it only gets bigger. That is what has happened here. The problems were highlighted, but they were not taken on board and they got bigger. I sincerely hope that the reports being published and the further work that all of us who are involved will do will give confidence to the governors, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Police Reform

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about our ongoing work to ensure the highest standards of integrity in the police. I have always been clear that I believe the vast majority of police officers in this country do their job honestly and with integrity. They fight crime in our villages, towns and cities; they deal with dangerous criminals; they strive to protect the vulnerable and keep our streets safe; and they have shown that they can cut crime even as we cut spending. Under this Government, crime is down by more than 10% since the election, proving that it is possible to do more with less. But as I have said before, the good work of the majority threatens to be damaged by a continuing series of events and revelations relating to police conduct.
	That is why, over the past 18 months, the Government have been implementing a series of changes to improve standards of police integrity: the college of policing has published a new code of ethics, which makes clear the high standards of behaviour expected from all police officers; a national list of chief officers’ pay and rewards, gifts and hospitality is now published online, and the final list of business interests will be published for the first time later this summer; a national register of officers struck off from the police has been produced and made available to vetting and anti-corruption officers in police forces; the Government will legislate later this year to ensure that officers cannot resign or retire to avoid dismissal in misconduct hearings; and we have beefed up the Independent Police Complaints Commission, so that in future it can take on all serious and sensitive cases involving the police. In addition to those specific measures, many of our other police reforms—the creation of the college of policing; having direct entry into the senior ranks; the election of police and crime commissioners; and the changes to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary —will make a positive difference when it comes to police integrity.
	Since I began the Government’s programme of work to improve public confidence in the police, further events and revelations have reinforced the need for reform: we have had reports on the misuse of stop and search, and the poor police response to domestic violence; we have had the findings of the Ellison review, which examined allegations of corruption during the initial, deeply flawed investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence; and we have had Sir David Normington’s review of the Police Federation, which recommended change from “top to bottom”.
	The measures we have introduced are vital, but we cannot stop there, and so I want to tell the House about my plans for further change. I want to open up policing to the brightest and best recruits. The Government have already introduced direct entry to open up the senior ranks of the police and bring in people with new perspectives and expertise. In London, the Metropolitan police received 595 applications for between five and 10 direct-entry superintendent posts; 26% of the applicants were from a black or minority ethnic background—this compares with 8.6% of traditional recruits—and 27% were female. In addition, using seed funding that I announced at the Police Federation conference in May,
	the Metropolitan police is setting up “Police Now”, the policing equivalent of Teach First, which will attract the brightest graduates into policing. But I want to go further. The college of policing will undertake a fundamental review of police leadership, which will look at how we can go further and faster with direct entry; how we can encourage officers to gain experience outside policing before returning later in life; and how we can open up the senior ranks to candidates from different backgrounds. The review will start immediately.
	In addition to those reforms, I want to ensure that the systems and processes that deal with misconduct by police officers are robust. That means where there are cases of wrongdoing, they must be dealt with effectively and, where necessary, appropriate disciplinary action must be taken. In March, I announced I would be creating a new offence of police corruption through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, but that alone is not enough. The police disciplinary system is complex. It has developed organically rather than been structured to fit its purpose. It lacks transparency for the public, it is bureaucratic and it lacks independence, so today I can tell the House that we will be reviewing the whole police disciplinary system from beginning to end. This review will be chaired by Major-General Clive Chapman, an experienced, independent and respected former Army officer, and I want it to draw on best practice from the private and public sectors. I have asked Major-General Chapman to look for ways to ensure that the disciplinary system is clearer, more independent and public-focused. I intend to consult publicly on the policies that emerge from the review later this year. In addition to the review, I want to make some specific changes to the police disciplinary system. In particular, I want to hold disciplinary hearings in public to improve transparency and justice, and I will launch a public consultation on these proposals later this year.
	In my statement on the Ellison review on 6 March, I said I would return to the House with proposals to strengthen protections for police whistleblowers. Police officers and staff need to know that they can come forward in complete confidence to report wrongdoing by their colleagues, so the Government will create a single national policy for police forces on whistleblowing to replace the current patchwork approach. This will set out the best principles and practices on whistleblowing, and ensure consistency of approach across all forces. Following the publication of HMIC’s integrity inspection, I am prepared to consider putting the whistleblowers’ code on a statutory basis. We will also require forces to publish more information on the number of conduct issues raised by officers and the action taken as a result. From 2015 onwards, the Home Office will collect and publish data about conduct and complaints brought by police officers and police staff about their colleagues, but I still want to go further. In the autumn, I will launch a public consultation on police whistleblowing. The consultation will look at a range of new proposals to protect police whistleblowers. For example, I want to consider how we can introduce sealed investigations—these prevent both the force and suspects from learning that an investigation is taking place—into serious misconduct and corruption by police officers.
	I also want to take an in-depth look at the police complaints system. Last year, I announced reforms to the IPCC to ensure that all serious and sensitive cases
	are dealt with by the IPCC. That included the transfer of resources from the police to the IPCC and measures to ensure that the IPCC has the right capacity to deal with demand. As I told the college of policing conference in October, this work is on track and the IPCC will begin to take on additional cases this year, but now is the time to build on those reforms. Public satisfaction surveys on the handling of complaints show that satisfaction levels remain consistently low. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, fewer than a quarter of those who complain to the police are satisfied with the outcome of their complaint. The overall number of complaints being handled independently is still far too low. This year, a review undertaken by Deborah Glass, the former deputy chair of the IPCC, found that 94% of cases referred to the IPCC in 2012 were referred back to be dealt with by the police.
	Police and crime commissioners are locally developing new and innovative approaches to police complaints. In Thames Valley, Anthony Stansfeld has announced a complaints, integrity and ethics committee to provide scrutiny of how the force handles complaints. In Greater Manchester, Tony Lloyd has appointed an independent complaints ombudsman to resolve complaints before they become part of the complaints system. We need the police complaints system to keep up with the changes we have seen in police structures, to reflect the changes made locally by PCCs and chief constables, and to meet public expectations. So today I will launch a review of the entire police complaints system, including the role, powers and funding of the IPCC and the local role played by PCCs. The review will look at the complaints system from end to end, examining the process every step of the way and for all complaints, from the most minor to the most serious. The review will commence immediately and conclude in the autumn this year. It will include a public consultation on proposals for a system that is more independent of the police, easier for the public to follow and more focused on resolving complaints locally, and that has a simpler system of appeals.
	The measures I have announced today will ensure that we are able to examine the entire approach to cases of misconduct, improper behaviour and corruption, but in working to ensure the highest standards of police integrity, I want to leave no stone unturned. This year, I commissioned HMIC to carry out a review of-anti-corruption capability in police forces. HMIC is also carrying out an inspection of police integrity as part of its planned programme of inspections for 2014-15. In addition, I have agreed with the chief inspector that HMIC’s new programme of annual inspections of all police forces, which will begin later this year, will look at not only a force’s effectiveness and efficiency but its legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Every annual inspection will therefore include an examination of whether each force’s officers and staff act with integrity.
	Taken together, these measures represent a substantial overhaul of the systems that hold police officers to account. They will build on our radical programme of police reform, and they will help to ensure that police honesty and integrity are protected, and that corruption and misconduct are rooted out. That is what the public and the many thousands of decent, dedicated and hard-working police officers of this country deserve. I commend this statement to the House.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Home Secretary for sight of her statement. Our long British tradition of policing by consent depends on our maintaining and ensuring the very highest standards of integrity and professionalism in British policing. The international reputation of our police is high. We know about the bravery and integrity of many officers across the country, but we also know that when policing goes wrong, it can cast a deep shadow over all that excellent work and undermine consent and confidence, too. That is why we have called for much stronger action on standards in policing. Lord Stevens is leading a major independent commission on the future of policing, which recommends radical reform. The reforms include: a new stronger police standards authority, replacing the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, with the power to launch investigations without referral and make sure that lessons are learned; chartered registration for every police officer; the ability to strike officers off the register; high professional and ethical standards against which officers must be measured throughout their career; public misconduct hearings; and a new Police First scheme to bring bright graduates, especially from technology backgrounds, into policing and many further reforms.
	Today the Home Secretary has announced not strong reforms but a series of reviews—three reviews and one consultation. Many are welcome as far as they go. We welcome stronger action on whistleblowers, with greater protection for whistleblowers and transparency for the public. We welcome more support for police leadership, although she will be aware that when West Yorkshire tried her existing proposals on direct entry, none of the dozens of people who applied met the right standards. We agree that the complaints procedure and disciplinary system need to be reformed because they are not working, but these reviews just do not go far enough. Why not get on with it and introduce a proper register of chartered police officers? I am glad that she has agreed with our call for public disciplinary hearings, but, again, why not get on with disciplinary reform and hand it over to the College of Policing, giving it the power to hold public hearings and to strike people off? Why waste time on piecemeal reforms of the IPCC and the complaints procedure, when the truth is that they need to be replaced?
	We have repeatedly called on the Home Secretary to replace the IPCC. The IPCC is supposed to be able to deal with things that go wrong in policing. It is better than the Police Complaints Authority that it replaced, but it has failed in its remit because it lacks the powers, capacity and credibility it needs. It failed on Ian Tomlinson. It failed on the Stephen Lawrence case and had to apologise to the family as a result. It failed to set out the clear lessons to be learned from a series of death in custody cases, including the Camm case in West Yorkshire. It has failed to deal with the problems from plebgate, and is still failing even to make a decision on whether to investigate what happened at Orgreave more than 12 months after a complaint was raised. How many reviews does she need to tell her that this system is not working? If she answers only one of my questions today, will she explain why she will not just admit that the IPCC is failing and needs to be replaced by a much stronger body?
	The one thing that the Home Secretary is not reviewing that she should be is her flagship policing reform of police and crime commissioners. She spent £100 million—enough for several thousand constables—on elections in November, and only 15% of voters turned out. Now she is about to spend nearly £4 million of taxpayers’ money on a by-election in the middle of August. What will the turnout be then? How low will turnouts have to fall before she admits that she got those flagship police reforms wrong?
	The Home Secretary also claimed that her other policing reforms were working, but the HMIC has today admitted that neighbourhood policing is now being eroded. Prosecutions and convictions are falling for violent crime, rape, domestic violence and child sex offences—even though all those offences are going up. There were 7,000 more violent crimes last year, but 7,000 fewer people were convicted of violent offences. She is failing to reform the police to deal with new and growing crimes. There has been too little action on online fraud, which is growing exponentially. On online child abuse, the National Crime Agency has details of more than 10,000 suspects, but it has no plans to investigate them all, to arrest them or to bar them from working with children because it admits that it does not have the capacity and systems in place to cope.
	In the face of those challenges, what are the Home Secretary’s police reforms? The answer is lots more reviews. I am glad that she is moving in the direction that we called for and we are keen to work with her if she will agree now to go much further, but so far we have standards that are not high enough; enforcement that is not strong enough; police and crime commissioners no one wants to vote for; fewer police on the beat; fewer criminals being caught; and less justice for victims. The Home Secretary’s reviews are too little and too late. We will work with her if she goes further. We need not just reviews but reforms that work.

Theresa May: Yet again, the shadow Home Secretary has given us a completely confused response on Labour’s policy on a whole range of issues. Let me touch on some of the specifics that she mentioned. She asked why we do not have a register of police officers, but I have to say to her that the Labour party was in Government for 13 years, and if it thought that that was so important, why did it not do something about it? It did not even do anything about the police officers who were struck off and who, once they had departed one particular police force, were able to join another. We have introduced the register of struck-off police officers, so, unlike Labour, we are taking action.
	The shadow Home Secretary talked about Labour’s proposal to merge the inspectorate of constabulary with the IPCC. I have to say that that would be a profound mistake. The inspectorate under this Government has become more independent of the police and of the Government. It has delivered hard-hitting reports on stop and search, the recording of crime statistics and domestic violence. Later this year, it will publish, for the first time, annual inspection reports of every constabulary in the country so the public can understand how their local police force is performing. Only today we have seen one of the most transparent and fair reports ever published by HMIC, so we should not be taking any risks in abolishing the inspectorate. Of course we do need to look at police complaints and the role of the
	IPCC, which is why I have just announced a consultation on changing the whole system of police complaints from end to end—from minor complaints to the most serious. It is a sensitive matter, which is why we will consult on it properly and get the policy right rather than jumping to some risky merger of HMIC and the IPCC, as Labour has proposed.
	The right hon. Lady also mentioned the matter of the police and crime commissioners and the by-election for the PCC in the west midlands. Labour has been in Opposition for more than four years. There is less than a year to go before the general election, and she cannot even make up her mind about whether or not she supports the idea of police and crime commissioners. On the one hand, she tells us that Labour is happy to have police and crime commissioners, but on the other she says that they were not a very good idea. She really needs to make up her mind as to whether or not Labour supports police and crime commissioners. Somehow, among all this, she seems to be making the point that with the reviews and consultations that I have announced, there is not enough action on police reform. Again, I wish she would make up her mind. Does she or does she not want police reform? I remember the days when she called police cuts and police reform “the perfect storm”. If what she says amounts to a genuine conversion to the ranks of those who believe in police reform, I welcome her belated conversion.
	The right hon. Lady also refers to the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. I do not know whether she has read today’s report, but the lesson is perfectly clear: police reform is working and crime is falling. The police are leading the way across the public sector by demonstrating, whatever the Labour party says, that it is possible to do more with less.
	Let me quote what the inspector of constabulary says about police cuts:
	“Police forces in England and Wales are to be congratulated. The vast majority have risen to and met the considerable challenge of austerity, with plans in place to save over £2.5 billion over the last four years—while protecting the front line as best they can and making sure that the public still receive an effective service.”
	Yet again on that issue, as on so many such as police and crime commissioners and police reform, what we hear from the shadow Home Secretary is nothing more than confusion and chaos. She needs to get her story straight about whether she, like me, wants to build on the excellent police that we have in this country and to ensure that we give them the support that they need to carry on doing an effective job of cutting crime day in and day out.

Damian Green: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the underlying key to the many welcome and necessary reforms she has announced today is a culture change, symbolised by the individual assent of every police officer to the new code of ethics so that the high standards that the vast majority of police meet day in, day out will be met by every serving officer?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his observation, and may I also take this opportunity to thank and commend him for the work he did in the Home Office as both Immigration Minister and, latterly, as Policing Minister, while also being a criminal justice Minister. He is absolutely right. The code of ethics from the College of Policing is a very important step forward
	and it is about exactly what he says: ensuring that the high standards of honesty and integrity that we see from the vast majority of officers apply to every officer.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which is very much in keeping with the recommendations made by the Select Committee over a number of years. Through her, may I welcome the new Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims to his Front-Bench post? The Committee considered the case of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), a 30-second incident that has so far cost £271,000. If her proposed reforms had been in place, would that have meant that that case, for example, would been dealt with in a different way? Does she accept the basic principle that whether a case is serious or minor the police should never be left to investigate matters themselves without proper oversight?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He refers, of course, to a case that involved not just misconduct hearings inside the police but the Crown Prosecution Service considering the potential for charges and criminal investigation. Of course, the changes I have announced would make no difference to any criminal investigations, but if misconduct hearings were to be heard in public, that would make a difference. As for his last point about the importance of ensuring that people can have confidence that complaints and misconduct issues are being dealt with properly, that absolutely underpins the reforms.

Julian Huppert: The Home Secretary is absolutely right to praise the work of the vast majority of police forces, but also right to highlight the need for public confidence and to make sure that the few rogue police officers do not do down all the others. May I press her on one particular point? She said that police officers would not be able to retire in order to avoid misconduct hearings. Will that have any application to the wide number of ongoing historic inquiries? Will retired police officers be required to come and say what they know?

Theresa May: It is important that we do this because one concern that the public had was that they had seen police officers who were under suspicion or potentially subject to misconduct hearings being able to retire or resign and those misconduct hearings were stopped. We have been very clear that in those circumstances, misconduct hearings should continue and if an officer would have been struck off, they should go on the list so that they will not be employed by another force. The measure I have announced is part of ensuring that that can take place. We have also, of course, taken some action on the IPCC’s powers for people to attend interviews. The question of what is said when someone attends an interview is another issue, but we have already taken some steps as regards these historic cases.

Thomas Docherty: Last night, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) had a very thoughtful Adjournment debate, responded to by the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, about a case in Sussex. One of the
	points the hon. Gentleman made was that the family of a road traffic victim had lost confidence in Sussex police, who were trying to investigate one of their own officers. Does the Home Secretary feel that there is merit in reconsidering whether other police forces should be asked to lead on the investigation when off-duty officers are involved?

Theresa May: I note the hon. Gentleman’s point and I understand that the case considered in last night’s Adjournment debate went before the courts and the individual concerned was found not guilty by the court—[Interruption.] I understand the point he is making about the question of the police investigating the police. One of the issues when the complaints system is considered will be the question of public concern about the police investigating the police. Obviously, the issue to which he refers involved a criminal investigation that was taken before the courts.

Tony Baldry: It must be a matter of public policy that any public servant should be allowed to raise concerns about criminal or other wrongdoing in public institutions without feeling that they might be sanctioned or subject to disciplinary proceedings, so may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider putting the whistleblower’s code on a statutory footing not just for the police force but across Government? If it is on a statutory footing, the whole House and the whole of Parliament can come to a view about what we believe should be the effective protections for anyone whistleblowing in the public sector.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said in my statement, I shall certainly consider putting it on a statutory footing. I recognise his point about the ability of Parliament to consider the issue, but HMIC is carrying out an integrity inspection and I shall consider again the matter of whether whistleblowing should have a statutory basis after it has published its report.

Julie Hilling: The major complaints I get in Bolton West are about the slowness of or lack of response from the police, and police officers tell me that the reduction in the number of back-room staff and officers is affecting their ability to respond. What will the Home Secretary do about that?

Theresa May: I suggest that the hon. Lady looks very carefully at the comments that have been made by the inspectorate of constabulary. It is absolutely clear about how police forces up and down the country have been protecting front-line responsibilities and services despite the fact that they have been dealing with cuts.

Nick Herbert: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and her indication that police reform will continue and is unfinished business. Is it not the case that the series of extremely problematic incidents that have confronted the British police over the past few years reveal that there are issues of culture and leadership that must now be addressed, and that that is an important role both of the College of Policing, which needs a higher profile, and of the direct-entry reforms that she is proposing?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. May I say how important his thoughtful contribution on police reform, which he developed in opposition and then brought into government as Policing Minister, was in ensuring that we set off on this process of police reform and made some of the major changes that have made a difference? There is an issue with culture and leadership and the College of Policing will take up the question of leadership in the work it is now doing. The college is establishing itself and I think it is doing an excellent job. We should all be out there reminding people of the important role this new body is playing.

Gareth Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly drew attention to the chief inspector of constabulary’s comments about seeing evidence of the erosion of neighbourhood policing. How does the Home Secretary think that the reviews and consultation she has announced might reverse the loss of 100-plus officers in Harrow since she entered the Home Office?

Theresa May: Yet again, I refer to my quotation from the inspectorate of constabulary’s report. It is very clear about the work that has been done by forces up and down the country to protect front-line services that are being provided to the public. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Metropolitan police are in the business of recruiting more officers.

Philip Hollobone: I think that the police are doing a fantastic job. Crime is down 10% and 40 of the 43 police forces have been outstanding in how they have managed their budgetary constraints. I declare my interest as a special constable with the British Transport police. All British Transport police officers on the London underground are constantly monitored by CCTV on all platforms, and they know that if they do something wrong it will be recorded. May I encourage the Home Secretary to encourage those forces that are above ground to give every police officer a camera on their police vest? That can minimise the number of complaints that are made and provide perfect evidence to correct any anomalies.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point and I thank him for his work as a special constable with the BTP. Let me also record the fact that alongside police officers and staff, police community support officers and specials have also contributed to the fall in crime that has taken place across the country.
	Body-worn video cameras are very important to ensure that evidence is collected properly. In certain circumstances, such as domestic violence, that can be particularly important. They are also important for the police officer because they can protect them when complaints are made about their behaviour.

Barry Gardiner: Many of my constituents will welcome the Home Secretary’s recognition of the reports of misuse of the stop-and-search powers. She will know that in London, fewer than one in five stops results in an arrest and many fewer than that go on to a successful prosecution. May I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) about
	the importance of cameras worn on uniforms? The pilot in London is proving successful. Will she roll it out across the rest of the country?

Theresa May: The pilot in London is proving successful, as have pilots elsewhere. Other forces such as Hampshire have already looked at the option of body-worn video cameras. As a Government, we certainly think that to introduce them would be a good move. It is an operational decision for chief constables to take, but I am pleased to say that a number of bids to the new police innovation fund have been precisely about new technology such as body-worn video cameras.
	I commend the Met for looking at how it conducts stops and searches. It has changed its practice to make it more targeted and focused, and results have been better following that. It has signed up to the voluntary code that the Government have introduced, as have other forces.

Ben Gummer: My right hon. Friend has been immensely brave in addressing the culture change that is required to restore public confidence in the police. I wonder whether, as part of her review, she could look at something that politicians heretofore have been rather nervous about touching, which is the relationship between the press and the police. Too often, unauthorised contacts, in transactions for cash or not, have meant that people have been tried by the public before they are brought before the courts, even if they are not brought before the courts. It is an important matter that should be looked at in detail.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Given some of the instances that we have seen of reporting in the press, I recognise the comment that he makes. We have made a number of moves on this already. Some came out of the Leveson inquiry, but I had already looked at this issue, in particular better accountability within police forces for the relationships that officers have with the media. I am pleased to say that forces have adopted new guidance for their officers on when it is appropriate for them to deal with the media and when it is not.

Peter Bone: Most police officers have the highest integrity, but there are a few crooks within the police force. When someone complains about a police force in which they have completely lost faith, and the complaint is taken up by the IPCC, they are surprised that the complaint is referred back to the same force. I welcome the Home Secretary’s review, but it is an important issue that has to be tackled.

Theresa May: I recognise that point. Many members of the public, whether they have made a complaint or not, are concerned about the fact that so much is referred back to the force that the complaint has been made against. We have already started the transfer of serious and sensitive cases from a force to the IPCC and have moved resources to the IPCC for that. The first cases will be heard by the IPCC this year. The review of complaints from end to end will also look at other types of complaints to ensure that at every stage the public can genuinely have confidence that a complaint against the police is taken seriously.

Nick de Bois: The Home Secretary has said that the measures represent a substantial overhaul of systems that hold police officers to account. Does she agree that the processes that will be used to implement the changes must not create a culture in which all police officers feel that they have been in dereliction of their duty, since so many of them work to the highest standards?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is always one of the difficulties in talking about this subject. As I said in my statement, and have repeated, the vast majority of police officers work with honesty and integrity, doing the best job that they can day in, day out, but sadly some do not operate with that same honesty and integrity, and of course their bad name tends to taint the names of other officers. We cannot repeat often enough that the vast majority of officers do their job with honesty and integrity. I hope that the code of ethics that the College of Policing is introducing will ensure that high standards of ethics are observed by every police officer.

Mark Pritchard: I am wowed by the Home Secretary’s statement. The potential is huge for real police reform over the coming months and years. It is good news for honest police officers and for the public. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing complainants and defendants to record interviews or statements given in police stations so that they can take away their own record of their dialogue with the police, not just rely on the police record?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman has established a first. The Clerk Assistant tells me he has never seen the word “wowed” appear in Hansardin that context. It is good to know what the hon. Gentleman looks and sounds like when he is wowed.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the changes that we are introducing. I will take away the point that he has made about defendants and interviews. He will have noted that the Attorney-General is on the Front Bench as well, and will have noted that issue.

Bob Stewart: Superintendents have huge responsibilities—professional responsibilities, and a requirement to lead. Direct entrants, who are possible future superintendents, will require quite a long period of training. How long might that training period be?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for training. We have been clear that direct entrants need to have a period of training. The College of Policing has developed such training, which lasts 18 months. I am pleased to see that one of the side benefits of direct entry is that the training of direct entrants will be looked at in conjunction with that of officers who are promoted to superintendent levels through the police force. This is welcomed by the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales.

John Howell: I am glad that the Home Secretary is tackling the issue of complaints, and I welcome the consultation. I do not want her to prejudge the consultation, but how difficult will it be to get the police complaints system to take on board imaginative schemes such as that of Anthony Stansfeld?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an interesting aspect. I hope that, by saying that we intend to look at the complaints system from end to end, we will inspire people to think innovatively and creatively. He mentions the work of the police and crime commissioner that he and I share—we both have constituencies in Thames Valley. I also mentioned Tony Lloyd’s work in Greater Manchester. Other PCCs have been looking at what they should do in relation to complaints. This is an opportunity to ensure that we have a system across the country in which people can have confidence, not a piecemeal system.

Jackie Doyle-Price: May I encourage my right hon. Friend to do as much as she can to inject independence into complaints management much earlier in the process? Professional standards units in police forces have a conflict of interest. They need to protect their own as well as to investigate complaints. Does she agree that PCCs now provide an opportunity to inject that independence much earlier in the process?

Theresa May: Yes. I will certainly reflect on the timing issue that my hon. Friend has raised. It is important. It is all part of the process of ensuring that there is a complaints systems that people feel operates properly and effectively and in which they can have confidence. We want people to know that if they have a genuine complaint about the police, it will be dealt with seriously and something will be done about it.

Bob Blackman: Although I recognise and understand the value of opening up the recruitment process for senior ranks to outsiders, does my right hon. Friend agree that this should add value to the police, rather than diminish and denude the ability of officers to rise from the ranks to the most senior positions and use the value of the experience they have gained for the benefit of the whole country?

Theresa May: Yes, absolutely, and we want to see a mix of people at those superintending ranks, both people who have come in directly and people who have come through the force and are able to use their experience in the force. I think this reform is important in opening up the police to different experiences, to different skill sets and to different expertise, and I think that greater diversity of expertise in policing will be of benefit to policing.

Andrew Stephenson: One of the biggest challenges that our police forces face is cybercrime, which will mean that we need some police officers with a skill set totally different from that required in the past. How will the Home Secretary’s reforms, such as direct entry, help our police to meet the challenges posed by these new forms of crime?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend makes a good point, because of course, with direct entry, it will be possible for people who have very particular areas of expertise to come into policing. However, we are also doing some other things to tackle cybercrime. The new national cybercrime unit, which has been set up in the National Crime Agency, is an important part of this process, and the National Crime Agency is looking at some innovative thinking of what I might call professional specialists, in
	the sense of specials who have a very particular area of expertise, such as in forensic accounting or in cyber, who potentially could be attached to the NCA and could be an extra-valuable resource for them.

Mr Speaker: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and to colleagues.

Points of Order

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some advice. I have a constituent who applied for a passport eight weeks ago and is travelling on Monday. My office tried to contact the Home Office’s hotline. My staff got through but were told that because of data protection the hotline staff could not discuss the case. I rang back, and they certainly spoke to me, and they then told me that yes, the application is in the Liverpool office and has not been looked at. But this is only a replacement passport, not a new one. My constituents tried to get an appointment to be fast-tracked; they were willing to drive to Liverpool for it. There are no appointments available. My constituents want me to find out what action I can take, Sir, to sort this out.

Mr Speaker: I do not think the timing of the raising of this point of order is accidental. Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I myself can provide him no salvation, but it may be that help is at hand. Home Secretary.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Speaker. If my hon. Friend passes the details of that constituent to either myself or the immigration Minister, we will ensure that the issue is taken up. Of course, as I indicated to the House in June when I made a statement about the passport office, we have opened up the possibility of a free upgrade for individuals whose passport has been waiting more than three weeks and who have an urgent need to travel, so we will take that case up.

Mr Speaker: I hope that is helpful.

Yvette Cooper: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Many Members across the House may have experienced what I have experienced, certainly in my constituency office, which is an increase in the number of cases of people being concerned about passport delays and struggling to get their passports in time. Would the Home Secretary agree to publish weekly figures about the detail of the backlog in the passport agency, so that we can tell whether her reforms are actually working?

Mr Speaker: The natural spirit of last-day generosity has been very fully exploited by the shadow Home Secretary. That is not a matter for the Chair. However, the point has been made with some force and it is open to the Home Secretary to respond if she wishes.

Theresa May: indicated dissent.

Mr Speaker: But I think we will have to leave it there on that matter for now.

Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers had, by this morning, still not confirmed that this House would be able to scrutinise the British nominee to the next European Commission, the noble Lord Hill, before the European Parliament does so in September. That would be an EU reform that the Prime Minister would not need any
	other country to agree to. I wondered whether you had had any confirmation of such a process being allowed in future?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman both for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. The hon. Gentleman will know well that the matter of pre-appointment hearings for ministerial nominees to various public offices is what I think I can best describe as a developing area of parliamentary scrutiny. There have been many exchanges between the Liaison Committee and the Government on this matter. No doubt those exchanges will continue, but it is not a matter for the Chair in the House; nor am I in a position to offer the hon. Gentleman any information beyond that which he already possesses.
	That said, if the hon. Gentleman happens to have some spare time and would care to read my Michael Ryle memorial lecture, which now features on the parliamentary website and which I delivered, if memory serves me correctly, at the end of June in Speaker’s House, he might find it a satisfying read. What is for sure is that he will find that I do myself have some views on that matter. We will leave it there for now.
	If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion.

Child Benefit Entitlement (Disqualification of Non-UK EU Nationals)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Philip Hollobone: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify non-UK citizens from the European Union from entitlement to child benefit; and for connected purposes.
	Mr Speaker, may I first thank you for giving me permission to move the motion? The purpose of the Bill, were it granted by the House, would be to end the absurd anomaly whereby any EU national can come to this country to work, leaving their children behind in their country of origin, and then British taxpayers pay child benefit to those children. I think that is wrong, the Prime Minister thinks it is wrong, most of the people in this country think it is wrong, and this Bill would put that wrong right.
	What is child benefit? It is a universal non-taxable cash payment for families with children. It is currently worth £20.50 a week for the eldest eligible child and £13.55 for each subsequent child. As of August 2013, 7.6 million families receive child benefit for over 13 million children and qualifying young people. Expenditure in 2013-14 on child benefit totalled £11.5 billion. Families with children may also receive means-tested support through child tax credit, and approximately 4.1 million families are receiving child tax credit for around 7.8 million children and young people.
	Child benefit has been said to perform a number of different functions, and different functions are emphasised at different points in time, but one of the main features of child benefit is that it provides a contribution from society as a whole to the next generation. Indeed, in August 2006 the Child Poverty Action Group highlighted the intergenerational redistributive effects of child benefit. It said:
	“Since everyone—childless people, as well as those with children—will benefit in due course from the productivity of children being brought up now, society”
	as a whole
	“should share the cost of bringing up those children with their parents, as an investment by us all in the next generation.”
	Well, that only applies if the children concerned are actually resident in, and growing up in, and will make a future contribution to, this country. Where those children are resident abroad and will not be in this country, that effect does not apply.
	Domestic legislation already provides that both child benefit and child tax credit cannot normally be paid in respect of children resident abroad. That is what this House, this Parliament, has legislated for. However, under provisions in EU law on social security co-ordination within the European economic area as a whole, both child benefit and child tax credit may be payable to EEA migrants in the UK in respect of their dependent children resident in another member state. The provisions relating to payment of family benefits for children resident in another member state are in EC regulation 883/2004.
	As a result of this perfect example of EU regulations superseding British law, as of 31 December 2013, 20,400 awards of UK child benefit, covering 34,268 children,
	were made in respect of children living in other EEA states. That equates to around 0.3% of all child benefit awards. Although not a large number, I think most people in this country would regard this as wrong.
	At the end of December 2012, there were 4,011 child tax credit awards under EC regulation 883/2004 in respect of 6,838 children. The majority of families benefiting from child benefit with children resident abroad were in Poland—13,175 Polish families with 22,093 children; in second place, with 2,505 children, was the Republic of Ireland; in third place, with 1,712, was Lithuania; in fourth place, with 1,429, was France; in fifth place, with 1,091, was Latvia; and in sixth place, with 1,019, was Spain. Thirty-one countries within the EEA are eligible and a total of 34,268 living overseas are receiving child benefit from UK taxpayers.
	Under the key provision, EC regulation 883/2004, an EEA migrant in the UK who is covered by the UK social security system can claim either or both child benefit and child tax credit for their dependent children, even if the children are not resident in the UK. Where the family benefits are payable by the state that has primary responsibility, if those benefits in that country are less than the family would get in the country where the working member of the family is working, the latter country has to pay a supplement to make up the difference. The benefit the Polish families are entitled to in this country is more than they would have got in Poland, so British taxpayers are supplementing the Polish child benefit to which they would be entitled. My constituents, and I would suggest the vast majority in this country regard that as simply absurd.
	It is difficult to determine the cost of all this. The reason, given by Her Majesty’s Government in a written answer from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is that
	“Information about the value of such awards is only available at disproportionate costs because under the priority rules”—
	which I have just described—
	“in that regulation not all awards of UK family benefit are made at the full UK rates.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 615W.]
	But some sections of the media have claimed that spending on child benefit for children resident in other countries now amounts to about £30 million a year.
	How do we change this? One way is through this Bill. The other, as stated in a written answer in November 2010, is that amendments would have to be made to the EC regulation, which would require:
	“a proposal by the European Commission and…co-decision with the European Parliament and the Council.” .”—[Official Report, 28 January 2013; Vol. 519, c. 444W.]
	I pray in aid of my quest the support of not only the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Prime Minister himself. I understand that Her Majesty’s Opposition also regard the situation as absurd. In The Daily Telegraph in April 2013, the Chancellor said:
	“The truth is we are absolutely wrestling with that issue at the moment and trying to find a way that is legal to make sure that
	benefits do not go to the continent of Europe. The European Union rules are pretty tough…but we are looking at all sorts of ways to make sure that British taxpayers pay for benefits that are paid in this country rather than abroad.”
	In January, on “The Andrew Marr Show” the Prime Minister said:
	“I…think it’s wrong that someone from Poland who comes here…we should be paying child benefit to their family back at home in Poland.”
	He said that we should not be doing that. Yet, in response to that comment, the Polish Foreign Minister said:
	“If Britain gets our taxpayers, shouldn’t it also pay their benefits? Why should Polish taxpayers subsidise British taxpayers’ children?”
	Describing children living in Poland as British taxpayers’ children just underlines the absurdity of the whole position.
	Let me make it clear to the House: I am not in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union. I believe we would be better off out as a nation if we controlled once again our tax and fiscal regimes, our work and benefits system, and ultimately our borders. There are now almost 2.5 million EU nationals living in this country, about half of whom have come from the new entrant eastern European countries. I hope that my Bill will play a small role in ultimately securing the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Philip Hollobone, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Nuttall, Philip Davies, Martin Vickers, Mr Peter Bone, Nigel Mills, Jim Shannon and John Baron present the Bill.
	Mr Philip Hollobone accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March; and to be printed (Bill 83).

David Heath: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The former Leader of the House assured me and others, I believe on more than one occasion, that we would have statement before the House rose for the summer recess on the aftermath of the flooding earlier this year. That is not forthcoming, and with a new Secretary of State I understand perfectly well why that may be the case, but would it be appropriate for the Secretary of State to write to Members affected by the flooding giving an update, and to put a copy in the Library, so that Members are informed over the recess about what has happened?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman has very considerable experience—including on the Front Bench—of how matters are timetabled to appear on the Order Paper and before the House. I know he is well aware that that is not a point of order for the Chair and that I have no control whatsoever over the Secretary of State, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am sure that it will be heard by those on the Treasury Bench and conveyed to where he really wishes it to be sent.

Electronic Communications

James Brokenshire: I beg to move,
	That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.
	The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which passed into law last week, was a necessary response to a European Court of Justice judgment that called into question the legal basis on which we require communications service providers in the UK to retain communications data. The judgment was handed down in April this year, not August as the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations incorrectly states—an administrative error for which I apologise to the House.
	Communications data—the who, where, when and how of a communication, but not its content—are crucial for fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism. Indeed, Members will have seen the recent reporting on the National Crime Agency’s child abuse investigation, which led to more than 600 arrests and the protection of more than 400 children. The NCA has confirmed that much of the operation would have been impossible without access to communications data. Where an investigation starts with an internet communication, as in online child sexual exploitation cases, for example, communications data will often be the only investigative lead. The loss of such data would have been potentially devastating and would have impacted seriously on the ability of the police, law enforcement agencies and security and intelligence agencies to investigate crime, uncover terrorist links, protect children, solve kidnappings and find vulnerable people in danger. I am therefore extremely grateful for the support shown in both Houses for the passage of the Act. I put on the record my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members—and in particular to the Opposition—for the constructive way in which they engaged in the debates.
	However, as was made clear last week, secondary legislation is required to cover the detail of the operation of the data retention regime and to ensure that the appropriate processes and safeguards can be applied to the retention of such data. That approach mirrors the existing position, in which the detailed data retention regime is set out in secondary legislation. That has worked well for a number of years. It is to those regulations that our attention must now turn.
	Members will be aware that a provisional draft of the regulations was published before the legislation was introduced. The regulations before the House today are substantially the same as those which have been available for scrutiny and examination. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for considering and reporting on them. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), the Chairman of that Committee, for arranging an exceptional meeting to consider the regulations.
	Before turning to the content of the regulations, let me deal with the discussion that took place during the passage of the Act about the speed at which the legislation was being passed. Without revisiting those debates today, I will briefly explain why we consider it necessary for the regulations to be passed before the summer recess.
	To ensure a strong legal basis for continued retention by service providers, we need to get the regulations in place before the House rises. The regulations ensure that the data to be retained are subject to appropriate safeguards, and the communications service providers concerned will welcome the certainty that the regulations bring.
	The Act gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a data retention notice to a communications service provider, if he or she considers the retention to be necessary and proportionate. The regulations made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 revoke and replace the 2009 data retention regulations. In large part the regulations replicate the obligations placed on providers under the 2009 regulations. In particular, they set out the types of data that can be retained. As was made clear during the debates on the Act, the list goes no further than the existing regulations. Crucially, the regulations set out the nature of the controls that must be placed on the data, both to ensure that they are adequately protected while they are being retained and to ensure that they are appropriately deleted at the end of that period.
	The regulations also ensure that service providers are not penalised financially as a result of complying with a notice or the regulations. That is in line with previous practice and is a fair way of ensuring that the data are retained effectively and that there is no distortion of the communications market, given that obligations may be placed selectively. The regulations contain transitional provisions for the continued effectiveness of a notice under the 2009 regulations, until a new notice is given under the new regulations. We will work closely with providers in the coming months as they make the transition to the new regime.
	As I highlighted to the House, the regulations contain additional safeguards. They differ from the 2009 regulations only in the context of those additional safeguards. They provide for data to be retained for a maximum of 12 months and allow the notice to specify that different types of data may be retained for shorter periods, where appropriate. If it is not proportionate to retain certain data for a full 12 months, a lower period can be chosen. The 2009 regulations provided for a blanket 12 months, although the directive on which they were based allowed for periods between six and 24 months.
	The regulations also provide for a number of issues which must be considered before a retention notice is issued. I wish to assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities seriously, scrutinising in detail any case for imposing a data retention notice to ensure that it is necessary and proportionate. It is with equal care and attention that we will approach our obligation to keep such notices under review.
	The Home Office has always worked closely with communications service providers prior to serving a data retention notice, and the regulations enshrine this existing best practice in law by requiring the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to consult the provider affected. As I have previously explained, the regulations will ensure that the data are subject to appropriate safeguards and controls. Those who followed the scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill, including some Members in the House this afternoon, will be aware that there was some uncertainty as to the extent to
	which the Information Commissioner would oversee the integrity and deletion of retained data, as well as their security. The regulations therefore clarify that the Information Commissioner will oversee all elements of the protection and security of the data. We have discussed this with the commissioner and will provide him with the necessary additional resources to carry out this vital role.
	Finally, the regulations amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to enable the creation of a data retention code of practice. That will allow us to provide further guidance to communications service providers on how to implement their obligations under a mandatory data retention notice and the regulations.
	The House may wonder why certain other changes that we agreed to make are not given effect in the regulations. Separately, we will also update the data acquisition code of practice under RIPA to make it clearer that the officer authorising access to the data should be independent of the operation, and to ensure that consideration is given to the level of intrusion where there may be concerns relating to professions that handle privileged information. I know that that has been of concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
	The House will have the opportunity in due course to review and comment on both draft codes of practice. In addition, we have announced that a number of public authorities will lose their access to communications data under RIPA and we will bring forward secondary legislation in the autumn in this regard. Hon. Members who followed the discussions about the draft Communications Data Bill will be aware that communications service providers are also able to retain communications data on a voluntary basis under a code of practice made under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The regulations apply the same security safeguards and access restrictions to data retained under that code.
	As right hon. and hon. Members know, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act will be repealed on 31 December 2016. Any notices made under the Act and the regulations will similarly fall away. The Government have begun the process of a wider review of investigatory powers and it is right that there should be a full and proper debate on the threats, capabilities and, of course, safeguards that govern the use of such powers. I am sure the House will agree that that should include a wider public debate on the issues.

Julian Huppert: I am sure the Minister will agree that for that public debate and a review to take place, we need good statistics and information. One of the few things that seems to be missing from the previous regulations and the new ones is a section about statistics. Will he confirm that there will be the same or stronger requirements on public communications providers to keep good statistics on such data and how they are used? How will those will be provided to the Government, who will then publish them?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting this aspect. As he knows, in the debates last week we underlined the need for greater transparency and reporting of information about the use of the powers under the Act. I can assure him that we will take that forward. He will be aware, too, of the requirement
	on the interception of communications commissioner to report on a six-monthly basis—I know that was of concern—to assure the House and the public about the use of the powers under the new Act. Therefore, I expect that providers of information and communications service providers retaining that information would provide data to facilitate transparency and to ensure that the public are informed about the use of the powers under the Act.
	As has been made absolutely clear over the past week, this legislation merely preserves the status quo. The Act passed last week and the regulations before the House today do not extend or create any new powers or obligations on communications companies that go beyond those that already exist; they simply ensure that the communications data that have been retained by the communications service providers will continue to be available to ensure that the police, the law enforcement agencies and the security and intelligence agencies have the capabilities they need to protect the public and keep us safe. I commend the regulations to the House.

David Hanson: I very much support the process that the Government have brought forward today. The Opposition will support the regulations before the House this afternoon. As the Minister has said, they are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, which we debated last Tuesday, although it seems a long time ago. It was certainly an interesting debate.
	The Minister has outlined clearly why the regulations are needed. Last week we supported him in taking the Act through the House, because we recognise, as he does, that retaining records and data is vital in fighting crime, whether tackling serious organised crime, dealing with child abuse or helping to prevent terrorism. We also welcome the safeguards we discussed last week in relation to access to those data. As he explained, the regulations put in place broadly what is already in place, and they therefore have our support.
	In offering our support, I wish to raise two issues that the Minister might like to respond to in any winding-up speech he cares to make. First, there was limited consultation on the regulations. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum, the 2009 regulations had a 12-week public consultation. Due to the pressing nature of the legislation we passed last week, the regulations before us had nothing that could be called a full consultation. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the six-monthly review by the Information Commissioner of how the legislation is working will include the regulations so that providers and other individuals have an opportunity to put on the record any concerns they have about their operation and so that those concerns can be examined?

James Brokenshire: The interception of communications commissioner is required to make a six-monthly review, and my expectation is that that would certainly cover the use of those powers. We need to consider the interrelationship with the Information Commissioner, because it is a separate regulator that looks at the retention of those data. Obviously, we will consider any interrelationship and any discussions that might need to take place between the two regulators to give an assurance to the public about the use of those data.

David Hanson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. My main point is that the legislation’s sunset clause means that it will cease to have effect in December 2016. The regulations are being made by the House today, but I want to ensure that they are examined on a regular basis, given that there was no proper consultation because the Act had to be rushed through last week.
	Secondly—I raised this matter privately with the Minister’s office earlier today—the initial regulations specified 8 August 2014 as the date on which the European Court of Justice declared the data retention direction 2006/24/EC invalid. The date was in fact 8 April. I just want to be clear that the Minister has relayed that matter to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments so that there is no doubt about what we are discussing today and the way it has been framed.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for contacting my office earlier today to highlight that point, to which he will have heard me make specific reference in my opening remarks. A further draft of the explanatory memorandum is certainly in the process of being relayed, if that has not already been done, as he rightly indicated. We are clear that that has no bearing on this afternoon’s debate.

David Hanson: I just thought that it was worth placing that on the record, as I would not wish there to be any confusion, given the nature of the debate we are having today.
	I am happy to support the regulations, given the potential for review and the safeguards we have put in place with regard to the Act. I look forward to formal reviews, as secured by the legislation. Given the assurances the Minister has given today, he will have our support for the regulations.

Julian Huppert: I will speak to the regulations only briefly. I think that there are a couple of points worth making. It is interesting to compare the debate we are having now with the one in 2009. Back then, no time at all was given to discuss the regulations, which were moved without debate by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Some Members who have expressed concern about these regulations voted in favour of the previous ones, even though they covered rather more. There was a debate in a Committee that lasted for 62 minutes, and it is very interesting to see how roles have changed. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who was then the Minister, said that they did not go far enough and that we needed to collect much more information from communications providers—he mentioned Facebook, but we can date the debate by his references to Bebo and Myspace as the other key providers. He was essentially calling for the Communications Data Bill—the snooper’s charter—that part of the Government, or at least the Home Secretary, wanted to see.
	In 2009 there was also a very nice speech from the hon. Gentleman who is currently the Minister. He took a very strong stance that RIPA should be used only to combat serious crime and for the protection of national security. I do not know whether he has told the Home Secretary that that is the Conservative position, because it seems to have changed somewhat—we have moved on
	very slightly. We also heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) saying, “Yes, communications data are important, but we need some more safeguards.” In fact, the safeguards he itemised have largely been delivered in these new regulations, so I am glad that we have made progress.
	There is concern, as expressed in the debate we had last week and by the public, about the idea that more information could be collected. For example, there is a concern that this could open the door to the collection of web logs and many other elements. It is worth having a look at the schedule to these regulations, which lists all the things that can be collected, and comparing it with the previous regulations. They are exactly the same—not a single word in the current regulations was not in the regulations introduced five years ago. On that basis, it is fairly clear that there are no new powers and that no new information—web logs, for example—can be collected.
	However, there have been a number of other changes. The Minister highlighted the fact that we have taken the opportunity to move from saying that all data must be collected for 12 months to saying that it must be collected for up to 12 months. I very much welcome that, because I think that there are a lot of data that can be of great use the next day, the next week or perhaps the next month, but which are not needed for the full 12 months. We also have—I do not think that the Minister referred to this—a higher standard of data integrity and security required. The wording has been changed from requiring data to be stored in a way that is as good as it had been stored to requiring the best that is available, so the requirement for data integrity and security is actually tighter. Of course, the Secretary of State is required to keep that under review.
	The one thing that there is not enough of—this is why I am pressing the Minister—is the idea of transparency. I want him to ensure throughout that as much information as possible is available. He and I have discussed how long the data can be kept for and how much of it is used in the 11th month available and so forth. That information must be available for all usages throughout the year so that we can make the right decisions. Wherever we draw the line, there will be some information on the other side of it. We want to make an informed and rational decision. I hope that he will ensure that all the notices make sure that those data are collected, as the interception of communications commissioner has also called for.
	These regulations represent a step forward from the previous regulations. They collect no new information, but they tighten it very slightly. I hope that the House will pass them so that we can continue to collect the data that protect our security, with that slight extra tweak on civil liberties.

John McDonnell: I would like to vote against these regulations but will not, because I do not wish to eat into the time for the summer recess debate, which I also want to participate in—there is self-interest in that as well. I just want to raise again the issue of professional secrecy. The Minister said in his introduction that that would be dealt with. In last week’s debate, it was to be dealt with in codes of practice and guidance, but now it will be built into the
	decision-making process. The concerns raised relate to the legal profession and to journalism. I would welcome the opportunity, as secretary of the all-party group on the National Union of Journalists, to meet the relevant officials to talk through how the protections will be implemented and what advice they might be able to give to ensure that there is no incursion on the rights of journalists to report accurately and truthfully.
	I see that, in paragraph 6.1 of the explanatory memorandum, the Minister has signed off the usual caveat:
	“In my view the provisions of the Data Retention Regulations 2014 are compatible with the Convention rights.”
	Bearing in mind that a similar statement was struck down last time in relation to the directive, will he take the exceptional step of publishing the legal opinion on which he based his judgment? I have a sneaking suspicion that this one might be challenged as well.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the support for the regulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson). I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) flagged up last week during our debates on the Act. He has highlighted issues relating to different categories of what I might describe as either protected or special groups of individuals in relation to the powers under RIPA. It would be the intent to obtain data from a communications data provider that would principally be at issue in such a context, and that would appear to fit within the code of practice relating to acquisition and disclosure. We therefore intend to bring forward amendments to that code as part of the arrangements.
	However, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has flagged up those issues, and I will perhaps write to him—

John McDonnell: Or meet me?

James Brokenshire: Equally, I will see whether it is possible to facilitate a meeting with my officials so that they can hear more directly any concerns that might be raised.
	I can tell the right hon. Member for Delyn that the interception of communications commissioner will look at the operation of the new legislation, which includes the regulations made under it, as part of his six-monthly review. I hope that that clarifies that point and gives him further assurance.
	I also want to make it clear that I stand by the statement in the explanatory memorandum about compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is the purpose behind the Act and the regulations, reflecting the judgment. That is why we have made these changes to secure the legal base—

John McDonnell: And the legal opinion?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman asks about the legal advice. He will know that it is not the practice of the Government to share or publish our legal advice, but I stand by the statement that has been made. I welcome the support of the House this afternoon, and the regulations will come into effect.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Data Retention Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Summer Adjournment

David Amess: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
	Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to raise a number of points. The first relates to the reshuffle. Some colleagues were pleased; some were disappointed. No one has asked me for my advice, but I can tell my colleagues that, having waited 31 years for preferment, I am still optimistic. My advice to colleagues who are still ambitious is if you keep your head down and serve your time, you will eventually gain preferment.
	I was unable to support either of the teams playing in the final of the World cup, but I am very concerned about the performance of the English football team. They badly let us down. In 1966, it was my home team, West Ham, that provided Bobby Moore, Geoff Hurst and Martin Peters. They led the team and scored all four goals. All those players were home grown. Nowadays, the premier league is an absolute disgrace. Our footballers are paid far too much money, and they underperform. I advise everyone to boycott premier league matches, although not those of the other leagues. The rest of our football teams are fantastic, but we will never win the World cup again if we continue to have all these overseas players.
	My next point relates to a scurrilous article about working-class Conservatives. I wish to advise the House that no one in the Conservative party asked me to produce a booklet on that subject; it was done entirely on my own initiative. I was not embarrassed by the fact that the first pamphlet mentioned 14 Members, but I have now been overwhelmed by colleagues who tell me that they are working class. In fact, I am now producing a hardback edition of the publication, so it would appear that these Benches are awash with working-class Conservatives.
	I also want to mention banks. This House has spent a great deal of time talking about how the banks are letting us down, but nothing has changed. The worst of them all is probably Barclays bank, whose customer service is an absolute disgrace. I wish there was a little more resolve among colleagues to do something about the banking sector.
	Over the weekend, the lift in a residential care home in my constituency broke down. The lifts there are run by Otis elevators—the same people who run the lifts in No. 1, Parliament street. The care home had 24-hour insurance cover, but it took three days for the lift service to be restored. That was an absolute disgrace.
	I have long been unhappy with the management of the probation service in Essex, so I was delighted when the Government I support—well, I support the Conservative part, at least—said that that probation service was going to be reorganised. To my horror, however, I have found out that the management of which I was so critical still seem to be involved in the service. I want to know how the management of the Essex Community Rehabilitation Company was appointed, what they are being paid and how many people were interviewed for the jobs.
	Along with many other colleagues, I attended events that were part of Royal Mail’s dog awareness week. Those events were designed to raise awareness of the dangers of dogs attacking postmen and postwomen when they are delivering letters. Those people do a fantastic job, and we should be much more appreciative of them. I am particularly pleased that Royal Mail is producing a special stamp relating to Southend being the alternative city of culture in 2017.
	There is too much variation in diabetes treatment across the UK. Recent evidence shows continuing variation in the prescribing of diabetes medicines across the country, and immediate action is needed to ensure that diabetes patients can access the full range of treatments and essential care processes.
	I have long been critical of the South Essex Partnership Trust. Day in and day out, week in and week out, I hear parents and other relatives of loved ones expressing their concern that those with mental health problems are not getting the support that they deserve. Recently, I have had contact with a family whose son, a troubled young man who has displayed homicidal thoughts, attempted suicide twice in one week. He was allowed to walk free by SEPT, which put him and his family in a very vulnerable position. As usual, SEPT got away with issuing a quick questionnaire and prescribing sedative medication. I want to continue to work with the Minister of State, who is responsible for care and support, to ensure that SEPT is inspected as soon as possible and that the management team is replaced.
	I am delighted that Southend hospital is working in partnership with the wonderful Macmillan organisation. A new support centre has been installed at the hospital, and in the first month it has already helped to support 100 cancer patients on their challenging journey.
	I am concerned about the cancer drugs fund. Takeda UK has recently brought to my attention that the fund, which has been extended to March 2016, is not guaranteed to continue after that date. I hope that all parliamentarians will do all they can to ensure that the wonderful support for the fund continues.
	Arthritis affects 10 million people in this country. I have recently met representatives of a number of arthritis-related charities. The British Society for Rheumatology is campaigning for the Government to create greater public awareness of the problem when people go to see their general practitioner.
	Physiotherapy is an important profession in the United Kingdom. I recently attended a reception on the Terrace organised by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. The total cost of adult social care in the UK in 2012-13 was £19 billion. Physiotherapy could do a great deal to reduce those costs.
	I happen to have had the honour of being the chairman of the all-party group on the Philippines. That country had the biggest economic growth in the region in 2013, but it is currently under threat from the South China sea problem. A great part of it is now being claimed by China on the basis of an imaginary nine-dash line. China has asserted indisputable sovereignty over those waters, to the exclusion of the Philippines and Vietnam, among others, so I very much hope the Government will do all they can to help the wonderful Philippine nation.
	The issue of Cyprus has been raised in this House many times. Cyprus has proved time and again that it is a reliable and predictable regional partner to the United Kingdom. I welcome the fact that negotiations on the island have resumed under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General. A just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem will allow Cyprus to fully utilise its role in the region.
	It is about time that we recognised that the UK needs a national cemetery. Some 94% of the population believes that a national cemetery should be set up to honour UK veterans and those who serve in the armed forces. I hope that colleagues will get behind that particular proposal.
	Something is certainly happening regarding the dredging of the River Thames. A local branch of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has been waiting to schedule a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), for nearly three months. By the time this debate has finished, I expect a clear date for that meeting.
	I am honoured to have a number of magnificent schools in the area I represent. Westcliff high school for girls is the second best school in the whole country, but between 2012 and 2017 it is having to make an effective reduction of 16% in its budget, and that is before it makes any pay increases to reward its highly skilled staff. Similarly, Southend high school for boys is coping with a 10% drop in available income at the moment, so I hope the Department for Education will do something to support those wonderful schools.
	Southend is in the current Guinness book of world records, having gathered together the greatest number of centenarians ever. Sadly, I have to report to the House that that record has just been broken by the United States of America, which has gathered together 31 centenarians. I am pleased to say that on 5 October at Nazareth house we will attempt to break the world record again. If any colleagues have centenarians in their constituencies, please send them along.
	This Saturday, 26 July, Rossi Ice Cream, in partnership with Cancer Research UK, will attempt to break the world record for the longest chain of people licking ice cream. I invite all colleagues to join us at Garon park to lick Rossi Ice Cream.
	I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other deputies a wonderful summer, and I thank all the staff of the House of Commons for the marvellous support they have provided for us over the past year.

Eleanor Laing: I am sure that the whole House echoes the hon. Gentleman’s kind words to the staff of the House.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the summer Adjournment debate. I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), a fellow West Ham United supporter. I have to report to him that an unkind comment was made in the Tea Room as I left at about 8 o’clock this morning. Colleagues said that by the time we come back for the next sitting in September, West Ham will be in the bottom three again.
	I am sure that will not be the case, but you never know. I am also pleased to be able to refer, like the hon. Gentleman, to my working-class roots. I cannot imagine that anybody who has been in this place for as long as he or I have been could still call themselves working class—that would be like defying gravity—but we do have working-class origins and are naturally very proud of them.
	As the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, it is customary to raise a number of issues in the pre-recess debate. I intend to do that as well, but not as many as the hon. Gentleman. I want to talk about Gaza, Zamir Telecom, east London river crossings, Tower Hamlets council, cycling, leasehold reform and housing. Given that so many colleagues wish to speak and that time is brief, it will suffice for me to use only a sentence or two in addressing most of those issues.
	I will start with the easiest issue, namely cycling. The Transport Committee recently produced a report on cycling safety, and the all-party group on cycling produced a report earlier this year on the back of The Times campaign, which resulted from the serious injury to one of its staff and deaths earlier this year. With the success of the Tour de France in the UK and of the cycling scheme promoted by Mayor Johnson in London, cycling is going from strength to strength. Last year, however, the Prime Minister promised a champion for cycling, but that has not materialised. We certainly need it.
	On east London river crossings, most people will know—Londoners certainly do—that the centre of gravity in London has been moving east for 30 years, and it will continue to do so for the next 30 years. If half of London’s population does not already live east of Tower bridge, it very soon will, yet west of Tower bridge there are more than 20 crossings over the Thames but only two to the east of it. Fortunately, consultation started today on another new crossing. One is already assured by the Department for Transport, Transport for London and the Mayor of London, but we need more than two. If London is going to continue to thrive, we need to make sure that the Thames is bridged or tunnelled, and we need those two crossings very quickly.
	PricewaterhouseCoopers is undertaking an investigation into the economics and finances of Tower Hamlets council over the past four years. The Electoral Commission recently produced a report on the chaos of the 22 May election. The police have undertaken a number of investigations into allegations. I commend Chief Superintendent Stringer, the borough commander, and his staff and colleagues for the assiduous way in which they investigated all those allegations. Tower Hamlets council is a work in progress. There is still a lot to be done. We want to make sure that next year’s general election is as clean, fair and transparent as possible, and I encourage everyone involved to continue to work in that direction.
	On leasehold reform, Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and Carlex have been working assiduously to press the need for leasehold reform. It is estimated that between 5 million and 7 million householders in England are leaseholders, and they are subject to unscrupulous efforts by freeholders to overcharge them for insurance, service charges and other aspects of their lease. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) and I have been working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and other Departments. Real progress
	is being made on leasehold reform for the first time since 2002, and I commend the coalition for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has responsibility for housing, has met us several times and I encourage him and his colleagues to continue to make progress, because millions of our fellow citizens are being ripped off by unscrupulous individuals who take them for every penny they can get. The issue affects pensioners and former council tenants who have exercised their right to buy but who are exposed to unfair service charges. They need protection. The issue crosses class boundaries—from former council tenants right the way through to many people living in £1 million properties in my constituency and docklands who are equally exposed because of gaps in legal protection.
	Housing is the biggest issue in Tower Hamlets and I know the same is true for many colleagues in London and in constituencies across the country. All parties are promising more house-building in their manifestos next year—at least, that is how it looks. Clearly, that is an important and fundamental promise that needs to be kept. When we came to power in 1997, our focus was on properties, particularly council properties and social housing, that were below the decency threshold. We focused on bringing those 2 million homes up to decency standards, but that meant that we did not focus on new build as much as we ought to have done in the early years. Obviously, that needs to be focused on now.
	My last two items are Zamir Telecom and Gaza. Zamir Telecom in my constituency is, as its name implies, a telecommunications company that services Bangladesh. There is an arrangement whereby it employs 50 people in my constituency, and more than 100 in Dhaka in Bangladesh. It was subject to a previous dispute with the Bangladesh Government and the Ministry of Communication. There was a court settlement in 2008, but three years later the Bangladesh Government reimposed difficulties to prevent it from functioning. UK Trade & Investment is involved; there are Government-to-Government communications; I have written to the Foreign Office and to the high commissioner; and there is a memorandum of understanding between Governments. There is a court case, and there have been two judgments for Zamir Telecom, but there has been a judgment in chambers against it.
	Zamir Telecom is a good local company, about which I am bidding for an Adjournment debate in September, so perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could exert your influence, as could the Deputy Leader of the House, to get me some space to raise the matter and get an official response from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Foreign Office. This company has grown from strength to strength for a number of years, but if this matter is not resolved, the prospect is that it might close completely, with jobs being lost in the UK and in Bangladesh.
	The final item I want to raise is Gaza. I know that we had an extensive statement and question and answer session yesterday afternoon with the Prime Minister, and that the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), made a statement last Monday. I also know that Gaza was raised during Foreign Office questions earlier, but I did
	not get a chance to come in this morning. I just want to reinforce the interest I have already shown by signing the early-day motion, by my question to the Prime Minister yesterday and by my letter to the Foreign Office 10 days ago. I advise the House that I have had more than 1,200 —it is probably going on for 1,400—e-mails from constituents on this matter alone over the eight days from when the latest Israeli action started to Sunday just gone.
	This matter clearly exercises the House, but I cannot put it better than by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the Leader of the Opposition, who said in a speech to our national policy forum at the weekend:
	“I defend Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks. But I cannot explain, justify or defend the horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including children and innocent civilians.”
	The death toll yesterday was 500—it is probably closer to, or has even exceeded, 600 by now—and 3,000 people have been injured, with tens of thousands displaced. The whole House has expressed concern about this matter. The whole House recognises Israel’s right to defend itself, but with its level of equipment, technology and intelligence, the targeting of hospitals, beaches, schools and residential apartments just does not seem proportionate. I do not think that anybody could possibly say that it looks proportionate. The right to defend is one thing; the mass killings that are going on are something else.
	I have a history of attacking Islamist groups in my constituency—I was very interested to hear the statement on Birmingham schools by the new Education Secretary earlier today—and I am more often called Islamophobic, but I have now been getting e-mails calling me anti-Semitic, so I must be doing something right, or I am upsetting both sides equally. Whatever it is, I am trying to do what I think is appropriate, to reflect my constituents’ concerns and to make points that are appropriate.
	In agreement with the hon. Member for Southend West, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker and your colleagues, as well as all the staff, security and police of the House for their service this year. I wish everybody a good summer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the first two speakers in this debate have been perfect in their discipline with the length of their speeches. A great many Members wish to speak this afternoon and this debate is timed—we have to finish at 7 pm—but if everybody keeps to about eight minutes, out of courtesy to other Members, then everyone who wishes to speak will have the chance to do so. I will not at the moment put on a formal time limit, but rely on the courtesy of each Member to his and her fellow Members. The person to set the example perfectly is Mr Nigel Evans.

Nigel Evans: No pressure then, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope to be perfect, but I am clearly not as perfect as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) or my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess). My hon. Friend regularly takes part in pre-recess Adjournment debates; indeed, it would not be a pre-recess Adjournment
	debate without him. His list of ideas would flavour admirably any future manifesto, and I wish him well with his suggestions. The hon. Gentleman was my Member of Parliament for a while when I lived in Limehouse. I must say that I cannot believe that he has angered anybody—never mind the two sides, as he intimated—because I believe that he is one of the more effective Members of Parliament who just says it as it is, rather than being overtly partisan at times. I thank him for his speech.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing, and the only issue I will speak about today is housing in the Ribble Valley. Yes, we need new housing—there are no two ways about it—and in certain high-pressure areas, such as London, we clearly have to look at extra appropriate and affordable housing. However, I live and represent an area in the Ribble Valley that is under siege from developers.
	Towns such as Clitheroe, which has already taken several hundred houses, has found a place within the core strategy for 1,040 more homes in a strategic site. Even though an area of more than 300 homes at Waddow was turned down just the other day, another application has now gone in for more than 275 homes there. I congratulate Councillors Kevin Horkin and Ian Brown on fighting those applications. A three-phase application in Langho, off Longsight road, could eventually end up with 900 houses, and Councillors Lois Rimmer and Michael Thomas are fighting those applications admirably.
	In Copster Green, 32 houses have recently been turned down by the local authority, and we will look at how, if that application goes to appeal, it is handled by the inspector. Although Ribble Valley has not adopted its core strategy, we believe that it is almost ready. The inspector and the local authority have worked hand in hand to ensure that the agreed amount of housing is at an appropriate level. There had previously been a hiccup, when historical figures were used. We will be watching very carefully to ensure that the almost adopted core strategy has some weight, which is vital.
	Councillor Simon Hore has taken a great interest in an application that may well be made in Chipping. On the site of an old chair works that is now disused—sadly, it has gone into liquidation—there is an application for a hotel and spa, and the same applicant intends to put more than 50 houses on a cricket field not too far away. I know that a number of local residents are up in arms about losing not only the facility, but the site, on which I am in discussions with the developer.
	Councillor Ricky Newmark has valiantly tried to fight applications for a total of more than 200 houses on several sites in the one area of Sabden. I have mentioned in Prime Minister’s questions the case at Barrow. It is a community of just over 200 houses, and an application has been put in for 504 houses. That was turned down by the local authority, but then overturned on appeal. One can only imagine the impact of 504 houses on that particular area.
	Not far away from Barrow is Whalley, which has already accepted hundreds of new houses. That includes an application from the Co-op, funnily enough, for more than 80 houses, where the application has been approved for some time, but the Co-op has not made a start on the houses, so one really starts to wonder why the application was put in in the first place. Hundreds of houses are going into neighbouring Whalley, even though
	hundreds have already been built in nearby Calderstones. I congratulate Councillors Terry Hill and Joyce Holgate on their representation in that area.
	The final area that I will mention is Longridge, although a number of other villages have accepted new houses, some through appeal. There are applications for a total of 1,700 houses over five sites in Longridge, which is a relatively small town. It also has the problem that neighbouring Whittingham, which is in Preston and so is in a different local authority area, has given permission for the construction of 650 houses. That was years ago and not a single house has been built. It is also considering giving permission for the building of 400 houses on the border of Longridge. The people who live in those areas will use Longridge as their main market town.
	A couple of websites called “Save Whalley Village” and “Save Longridge” have been set up. I went to a public meeting in Longridge to which more than 500 people turned up to protest against the over-development of the town. They spoke with great enthusiasm and passion. They are not saying no to any house building, but no to the over-development of the area that they love. We must start to listen to people. I know that we regularly say that if somebody says no to something, they are a nimby. Frankly, if I lived in an area where there were applications for the over-development of a number of sites, I would be proud to be a nimby. I would want to protect my backyard, my front yard and the sides of my property too. I do not think that referring to people as nimbys helps.
	The local authorities, councillors and residents in those areas are doing a sterling job. We need to look again at the powers of the Planning Inspectorate. When a local authority turns down an application by a certain percentage and an inspector tries to overturn that decision, it should go back to the local authority. If the local authority again turns it down by a similar percentage or a higher percentage—the Government can look at that—that should be final. Localism should mean that the local councillors who represent local people have the final say. We should not have a person who comes up from Bristol, looks at the application and says off the top of his head, “That seems to fit some sort of criteria,” and then off he goes, leaving destruction and chaos in his wake. We need to look again at empowering local authority councillors to protect their areas. We all know—without going into detail, because I am coming up to my eight minutes—why people do not want to see their areas destroyed.
	We need to look at other areas, such as around Ribble Valley, Pendle, Burnley and Blackburn, where money could be spent on regeneration, which is far better than building on greenfield sites. We should look at charging no VAT on the regeneration of housing stock to bring it back into use. We need more protection for areas that are struggling with their core strategy, but that aim to get it in place as quickly as they can. There should be no presumption in favour of building.
	The Planning Inspectorate seems to have a similar slogan to Obama’s “Yes we can” or “Yes you can”, whereas the people who live in these areas say, “Please, enough is enough.” I think that “Enough is enough” beats “Yes we can”.

Eric Joyce: I have two issues that I will put together as seamlessly as I can. I might not be as seamless as the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) because I plan to breathe a couple of times.
	A little while ago, there was an issue in my constituency and the surrounding area involving the Grangemouth refinery. It was a sad story and there was much tumult locally. I will not bore Members with the detail but, suffice it to say, there was an issue between the employer and the trade union, Unite, that almost led to the closure of the refinery, which employs about 1,400 or 1,500 people and a further 4,000 or 5,000 in the local labour chain. In the long run, 5,000 or 6,000 people would have lost their jobs, had the refinery shut. I have my views on the situation, but I do not think that this is the place to air them.
	In due course, the situation was solved by a combination of the union seeing a bit of sense and the employer negotiating with the UK and Scottish Governments. The UK Government gave some guarantees about future investment. This week, the employer, INEOS, announced that it had secured a £230 million facility through the Government’s loan guarantee scheme and that, in addition, it was investing £300 million in a new plant to process shale gas imported from the US. For the first time in many years, that will secure the jobs at Grangemouth for a long time to come. It has always been touch and go whether Grangemouth’s future would extend beyond five or 10 years; it now seems to be secure for at least 20 years.
	I hasten to say that Grangemouth is not in my constituency, but it is just a few hundred yards away and the majority of the people who work there live in my constituency. There are also several thousand people in the supply chain who live in my constituency.
	A couple of issues arise from the current situation. First, given that the gas that is imported will come from fracking, we need to take a position on whether we support fracking. I do support fracking, but it is a contentious issue and not everyone in this House agrees with it. In addition, Dart Energy has a substantial coal bed methane extraction project in my constituency. I firmly support that as well. Locally, the Scottish National party has campaigned against coal bed methane extraction. I do not know what position it will take on the importation of gas that is extracted through fracking. The view that it has taken suggests that it will be against it in principle, and therefore against the employment of a large number of my constituents. However, I will leave it to the SNP to answer that. Having said that, the SNP Government in Scotland have made a contribution of £6 million. The Scottish Government are taking one position and the local representatives are taking another.
	The extractive industries in Falkirk, Grangemouth and the surrounding area in central Scotland are concerned primarily with oil. I am fortunate to be one of the civil society representatives on the extractive industries transparency initiative to which the UK is signing up. That is going very well and the Government have just submitted their application to the EITI. That is an important symbolic measure for the UK.
	Of course, the primary element of the EITI in the UK is oil and gas. That leads on to the second issue that I want to raise. Recently, I have had quite a lot of communication with politicians from other parts of the
	world who are involved in the EITI, which is about transparency and good governance in the extractive industries. That relates mainly to mining in some countries and mainly to oil and gas in others.
	Recently, I have had a lot of contact with Nigeria. The governor of Rivers state, which is Nigeria’s Aberdeen as it is the main centre of the oil industry, has led the EITI process in that country. By chance, I was in the region a couple of weeks ago for a day or two and I visited him. It was striking what a good job is being done there. What is being done varies across Nigeria and we tend to hear the bad news stories. One can see the link between the money that is being paid into the state and the investment by the state—both the federal state and Rivers state—into the infrastructure. That is the whole point of EITI. Hundreds of new schools are being built, several of which I visited. A monorail system and a good road system are also being built. That is a good example of what can happen through good governance.
	I am reluctant to praise the Government, but they are pushing ahead with some good legislation and have signed up to the transparency and accounting directives. The beneficial ownership stuff will also be coming up shortly. The UK is pretty much in the lead on that, with the support of the Opposition.
	I will conclude on this point, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will pull me up if I go over my eight minutes. I do not want to delve into how other countries vote or into which Governments are returned. I know that nobody wants to do that, except for in a few rare cases where there is consensus. However, I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that the party of government in Nigeria has effectively started campaigning. I am a little sympathetic to the plight of the opposition in that country, not because I know a great deal about the internal politics of Nigeria, but because I see what is going on in Rivers state, which is very good. I am therefore prepared to accept that the opposition—the All Progressives Congress—has some kind of plan. I would not wish to be any more explicit than that. It seems to me that there is a coherent opposition. The governor of Rivers state is an important member of that opposition and there are many others. At the moment, we tend to hear the party of government’s campaign through one or two things that are said in this House. I noticed that there was a visit by the Finance Minister of Nigeria two weeks ago, and those things were echoed in statements in meetings around the place. Some things that were said were essentially party political, and Members who were, I think, being supportive for good reason of the Nigerian Government were essentially echoing party political themes, and the opposition in Nigeria cannot campaign at the moment because it is unlawful to campaign until November.
	I urge Members to reflect on the fact that there is a presidential election next February in Nigeria, and some of the stuff that is coming out, and coming through London and back through CNN, the BBC World Service and so on, is blatantly party political campaigning that the Nigerian Government can do, but which an increasingly well-organised opposition cannot.

David Tredinnick: The last time I was called to speak was not by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or by another Deputy Speaker, but was actually at the
	Glastonbury rock festival—the Glastonbury festival of performing arts. I was asked to speak in the speaker’s tent, and follow in the illustrious footsteps of Tony Benn, God bless him. I think I was asked to speak because although perhaps not on the same scale, I have had what has been seen as a radical agenda in this House in promoting complementary medicine over the past 20 years. I do not regard that as particularly controversial, but it is something I have stuck to, and I think that Benn’s law certainly applies to me.
	As colleagues will recall, Tony Benn said that when someone has a controversial idea:
	“First they ignore you, then they say you’re mad, then dangerous… and then you can’t find anyone who disagrees with you.”
	I have found over the years that that has happened, and I have had relentless attacks. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) once called me the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett. I have had a fake Twitter account set up called “Inside the head of David Tredinnick”—[Laughter.] Yes. With my brain displayed. In the 2001 general election I had the honour of having a science candidate stand against me. He polled 196 votes against my 23,000, which colleagues will agree is not a bad result. I have been attacked by sceptical people over the years, and I regard many of the people who bombard Members’ websites as bullies and ignorant. They have never studied the subjects they are criticising. They are abusive and it is almost a breach of privilege in trying to stop colleagues speaking out.
	I want to talk, quite briefly, wearing four hats—as a member of the Health Committee since the beginning of this Parliament, as a member of the Science and Technology Committee, as vice-chair of the Government’s herbals working group, and as chair of the all-party group for integrated healthcare. My researcher tells me that I have chaired nearly 100 meetings of that group.
	I was somewhat surprised to find billed at Glastonbury a pair of speakers from the other side of the House: the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is the shadow Health Secretary, and a certain former Member for Brent East, Mr Livingstone. I was not sure whether the right hon. Member for Leigh was the warm-up act for Mr Livingstone, or whether Mr Livingstone was the warm-up act for the right hon. Gentleman, but it would have been interesting to go to the Left Field, the field for left-wingers, where they were speaking. I was in a more modest tent.
	I had quite a challenge because I was asked to follow Jonathan Cainer who, as one or two colleagues may know, is the astrologer who writes for the Daily Mail. I did a little research on that, and he has 12 million followers worldwide and 10,000 subscribers to audio forecasts. People who are sceptical might think it strange that somebody like that can attract such a following, but in that situation I think another parliamentary rule applies. You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.

Nigel Evans: Speak for yourself!

David Tredinnick: Yes, thank you.
	In this instance it is just possible that Jonathan Cainer has something that people do believe in, and I have made a study of astrology in connection with health
	care over the past 20 years. I was on the last parliamentary delegation to Hong Kong before the Chinese took it back, and Governor Chris Patten said, “David, what would you like to do? Do you want to go up to the Stanley barracks, go out on a frigate or to the new territories?” I said, “No, Governor. I would like to see your astrologer.” And as Governor of Hong Kong he had one. I went to meet the astrologer and he was very concerned about the buildings around Government House.
	I have been to India and talked to people there and to the Indian Government about the Indian astrological system, lahiri, which is part of their culture. In western culture, Culpeper’s book, “Astrological Judgement of Diseases from the Decumbiture of the Sick” of 1655 is the longest in print, so in all cultures we have that tradition.
	I will conclude my remarks because I know I will get a lot of friendly e-mails for having had the temerity to talk about astrology in this House, but I am absolutely convinced that those who look at the map of the sky for the day that they were born and receive some professional guidance will find out a lot about themselves, and it will make their life easier. As Propertius, perhaps the most famous Roman poet, said, “A man should live his life in the endeavours which suit him best.”
	I am happy for you to intervene, Mr Deputy Speaker, and remind me how much time I have left.

Lindsay Hoyle: One minute.

David Tredinnick: Well I will definitely get a lot of friendly e-mails, because I have not got on to saying that I believe firmly as a member of the Health and Science and Technology Committees of the House that we must consider ways of reducing demand for antibiotics. Both the Health Committee and the Science and Technology Committee have reported that by using complementary medicine and by listening to the witnesses we can reduce that demand. I hope that in future we stop looking just at increasing the supply of drugs and consider the way that complementary and alternative medicine can reduce the demand for drugs, reduce pressures on the health service, increase patient satisfaction, and make everyone in this country happier.

Barbara Keeley: It is a pleasure to follow my colleague from the Health Committee who spoke on a theme we hear quite a bit about in our meetings—less so the astrology, but we hear quite a bit about the other aspects.
	I want to talk about carers, who are a key part of our society. The challenges of caring should be a vital part of the debate on social care. Now that we talk so much more about the integration of health and social care, we must remember that unpaid family carers provide most of that care. It is not paid for—it is given. The Care Act 2014 gave local authorities responsibility for assessing a carer’s own needs for support, and for deciding whether those needs are “eligible” for support. I believe that that legislation fails carers in two ways. We know that £3.7 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets since 2009-10. Giving carers new rights to assessment and support is a hollow improvement because the support available to them is dwindling because of higher eligibility levels and increased charges.
	Macmillan Cancer Support reports that only one in three carers of people with cancer had heard of a carer’s assessment, and only one in 20 carers have actually had one. A survey in 2013 found that more than 70% of carers come into contact with health professionals, including GPs, doctors and nursing staff, during their caring journey. We have given the duty to assess carers to a body that a lot of carers do not see. It has always been clear to me that health professionals should have a key role in identification, but currently they identify only one in 10 carers, and GPs identify fewer than that.
	The need for NHS bodies to identify carers and ensure that they are referred to sources of advice and support was raised at all stages of the debate on the Care Bill in the Commons, but was not accepted by the care Minister. Labour tabled new clauses to ensure that NHS bodies were required to identify carers and ensure that carers received advice and support, but they were voted down. In my constituency I see how that leaves carers with inadequate support. Last week I raised the example of a 62-year-old man from Eccles, who is caring for his wife who has Alzheimer’s. When Mr Bielawski sought an urgent GP appointment for his wife, he was told that it would take five weeks for her to see her GP and two weeks to see any GP, or he could take her to Salford Royal hospital’s A and E department. That is clearly not acceptable, but it is what happens when there is no duty on GPs or their staff to identify carers. If they did that, carers and the people for whom they are caring could be given the support and the priority that they deserve. In my view, a carer for somebody with Alzheimer’s disease should receive more priority than Mr Bielawski was given.
	I believe it is time for the national Government to make a covenant with carers to show how society values their caring, and how we intend to support them to continue to care in future. A covenant could address flaws in the Care Act 2014, widen the definition of carer and address additional burdens that have been put on carers by this Government’s welfare reforms.
	I suggest that, initially, under the covenant, NHS bodies should have a duty to identify carers, which I have just discussed; GPs and hospital staff should signpost carers to that help and support; NHS bodies should ensure that carers receive relevant medical services, because many carers need health checks that they never get; the definition of carer should be widened to include young carers and parent carers; and schools and colleges should recognise the needs and rights of young carers, and have procedures in place to identify them. More generally, the Government should have a role in ensuring that children and young people are protected from inappropriate caring.
	We should not—absolutely not—charge carers if they need an extra room for their caring responsibilities. The bedroom tax currently affects 60,000 carers, and I am glad that Labour has pledged to abolish it. I hope that we have an early vote on that. Given the reported policy U-turns in other parties, I hope they will join Labour Members in that pledge to abolish the bedroom tax. Given that current welfare reforms have had an impact on carers, the Government should ensure that future legislation is more carer-proofed, so that changes do not negatively affect carers’ ability to care.
	My last point on the care part of my speech is on Labour’s whole person care proposals, which would bring together three fragmented services—NHS, mental health and social care—into a single service co-ordinating all a person’s needs. I trust that supporting carers will be central to Labour’s proposals, because, as I have said, carers provide so much of the care needed.
	The bedroom tax has hit my constituency hard. Around 1,400 households are still affected. A small number have been able to move and downsize, but for the rest of those affected, the true impact of the bedroom tax is becoming clearer. Some households affected by the bedroom tax were helped by the local authority’s discretionary housing payment scheme, which was well managed and targeted appropriately by Salford city council. Despite that help, only 49% of those households affected have been able to pay the tax, and 51% of have slipped into arrears, which have risen by £90,000 in recent months. As I said, Labour has pledged to abolish the bedroom tax. That will be a relief to my constituents, but meanwhile, it is worth saying that the policy is taking my constituents into debt and into misery.
	Talking of Department for Work and Pensions chaos, I recently took up the case of a constituent, Mr Koppens, who had undergone major surgery for tongue and neck cancer—a very difficult cancer. My constituent told me that, in an operation lasting more than 13 hours, he suffered heart attacks, and that he continues to have unstable angina. Given his medical history, he is not allowed to drive. Despite that, a DWP decision maker put Mr Koppens into the work-related activity group, so that he was required by the local jobcentre to attend an interview. He was referred to the Work programme.
	Mr Koppens was astonished at that outcome. He felt that the jobcentre was putting pressure on him, and making him feel like a cheat and that his cardiologist and doctors were liars. In the end, he attended an interview with the Work programme provider, but during the interview, he started to suffer chest pain. He asked for a first-aider but there was no first-aider, so he had to ask for an ambulance to be called. I was amazed to discover that, despite all that, as Mr Koppens was leaving to go to the hospital, the centre’s manager remonstrated that Mr Koppens’s wife, who had driven him to the interview, had failed to sign in properly when they arrived.
	Furthermore, I have had to raise with Ministers eight cases of constituents who have claimed personal independence payment from May 2013, June 2013, August 2013 and September 2013. They have encountered lost forms, waits of six months or more for an Atos assessment, and a lack of updates or information when they contact the DWP. The process appears to be in complete chaos. I hope the newly appointed Ministers will be able to make some impact on the chaos at the DWP because my constituents are suffering from it. To be frank, I am not holding my breath.
	Another local issue is air pollution. Last Thursday, I asked the following question to the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
	“The M60, the M62 and the M602 run through my constituency…We have extremely high levels of air pollution from road traffic. Indeed, the Highways Agency has had to shelve its plans to widen the M60 near my constituency because that would have brought too much road traffic”
	on to the motorway
	“and made our unacceptable air pollution worse. Now that the European Court of Justice has ruled that the Government are failing to meet their air pollution targets…what plans”
	do
	“Ministers have to tackle air pollution in areas such as mine, to prevent my constituents from suffering respiratory disease and early death?”—[Official Report, 17 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 1001.]
	Not surprisingly, the Secretary of State—she had been in her new role for only 48 hours—found that she could not answer that question, so I hope the Deputy Leader of the House has an answer today because, in summertime, the pollution tends to make my constituents very ill.
	The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke of the need for a national cemetery, but in the past 24 hours, I have been dealing with the problem of dozens of gravestones dumped on land near the Manchester ship canal. I thank Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle of Greater Manchester police, and David Seager of Salford city council, for dealing with that sensitive matter and for trying to find a solution that respects the families who own the gravestones, which should never have been dumped. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a good recess, and I thank all who support our work, particularly the Hansard writers and Noeleen and her team in the Tea Room.

Bob Russell: Britain’s road safety record is arguably the best of any industrial country in the world. The number of people who lose their lives on the road today is about a third of what it was almost 50 years ago. Great progress has been made, and successive Governments can take pride in that. It is in that context, therefore, that I draw the House’s attention to the inexplicable possibility of a relaxation of certain aspects of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This year, we commemorate the 40th anniversary of its passing in Parliament with the unanimous support of all political parties, which it has had over those years.
	Based on the figures of 40 years ago, it is estimated that 1,000 lives have been saved every year—40,000 lives have been saved. That is not to mention the injuries at work that have been prevented. We should think about the impact that such injuries have on the lives of people who are injured, their families and work colleagues, and the about impact on hospitals’ accident and emergency departments, which hon. Members know are already overburdened. In that context, to even talk of or think about diluting something that saves lives and prevents injuries, and makes work a safe environment, is unbelievable. The fact that the Government and others are thinking about it is something that we should take very seriously.
	It is worth noting that the whole Olympic stadium was built without the loss of a single life. We should contrast that with the large number of deaths that occur in the building of World cup stadiums and Olympic stadiums elsewhere in the world. The 1974 Act was crucial in ensuring that safe environment in that flagship development, which we all enjoyed two years ago. We give praise in equal measure to employers organisations and trade unions, as well as Governments, for allowing that to happen.
	Into that great success story of safety and of lives being saved, it is being suggested that the approved code of practice in construction regulations should be diluted.
	I draw attention in particular to what is known as appendix 4. Many of us assume the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 applies only to dangerous occupations such as building, but it applies everywhere, including in our constituency offices. I was going to say it applies to the Houses of Parliament, but I have a feeling that they are exempt. I would like to think they follow the code of conduct. Health and safety accreditation schemes cover industries from A to Z, from air travel to zoos—just about everything.
	Appendix 4 is adopted by a whole range of organisations to ensure that their work force can work in a safe environment. It is simple to read; clear; easily understood and applied; relevant and applicable across a wide range of industry sectors, not just, as I said, in construction industries; and widely used and recognised because of its regulatory standing as part of an approved code of practice. I therefore hope in this very brief contribution—I want to keep it very tight—that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will ensure that common sense breaks out. If 1,000 lives a year are being saved and people at work are being saved from serious injury—not to mention the impact that that would have on their place of work and on their employers’ ability to do whatever that business is doing—why do away with it? If it is going to be done away with, what will the consequences be, purely in terms of injuries, on our accident and emergency departments?
	The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 has been a great success story. In the same way that we have made our roads safer, we should ensure that we do not make our workplaces less safe.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) on his speech. I disagreed with every word of it. I was intrigued to hear that he is the chair of what I think he called the Government herb committee. That conjured images from my childhood of the television programme, “The Herbs”. Parsley the Lion, Dill the Dog, Lady Rosemary and Bayleaf the Gardener all went flooding through my mind.
	I was delighted by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I completely agree with her on the bedroom tax. I am determined that when Labour wins the general election next year, we will repeal the bedroom tax. If the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), who will wind up for the Government, is still a Member of Parliament then, I look forward to him voting with us, even if he cannot bring himself to vote with us on this matter before that date.
	I wish to raise two specific issues. The first is concussion in sport. Members may know that in the United States a legal action against the National Football League has led to a $1 billion class suit. It looks as if the money set aside by the sport will still not be enough to compensate those who have suffered from industrial injuries. That was due to the negligence shown by the sport, and the cover-up: the sport had conducted research, but was not prepared to make it public. I believe—as do some other Members; we have produced a joint report—that exactly the same thing is happening in the United Kingdom. The sporting bodies in this country need to take this matter far more seriously than they do.
	On 19 January 2002, Jeff Astle died. He was perhaps one of the most iconic soccer players of the late 20th century. He played for West Bromwich Albion and was renowned as a great header of the ball. The coroner decided that he had died because of repeated minor traumas to his head caused by heading the ball. Some people say that football has changed in the intervening years. However, the research conducted in the US shows that the use of a lighter ball makes absolutely no difference to the chronic traumatic encephalopathy that can be suffered by players.
	When Jeff died, the Football Association in this country promised—it swore blind to Jeff’s family, his lovely widow and his daughters—that it would conduct 10 years of thorough research, and that it would make that research public. To date, no research whatever seems to have been done. If any research has been done, it has been covered up and not made public. Not only is that a disgraceful way to treat the family of Jeff Astle, but the FA is verging on the criminally negligent in how it is treating other players who are in exactly the same position.
	We only had to watch two of the last matches of the World cup to see examples. In the final, Christoph Kramer was playing for Germany when he received what was quite clearly a concussion, but he went back on to play. Afterwards, he said that he could not even remember most of the first half of the match because of the blow he had taken to his head. Javier Mascherano, one of the Argentine players, was also clearly concussed in a semi-final game, but went back on to the field of play. That sends the message to young boys and girls playing many different sports in which they might receive a blow to the head that it is better to go back on the pitch, even if they have received such a blow.
	To appreciate the all-too-possible danger of a double impact, particularly to children, we need only consider the case of Ben Robinson, who a few years ago went back on the pitch, received a second concussion and died. Of course, I am not saying that every child should be wrapped in cotton wool—we want people to enjoy their sport—but the message coming from big sport, broadcasters, doctors and sporting bodies is that it is better to get back on your feet, go back on and play. Where there is good research proving that chronic traumatic encephalopathy is leading to long-term depression, mental illness, early onset dementia and possibly suicide, surely to God we need to take that seriously, and where there is no research, in sports with regular brain injuries, surely to God we need to ensure that research is done, and all the sporting bodies need to work together.
	That is why the hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), two peers, Lord Addington and Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and I have produced a joint report calling on the Health Committee or the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of this House to conduct a parliamentary inquiry, bringing together all the facts from sporting bodies, doctors, the NHS and schools, and coming up with a single message: concussion will not always kill, but we must take it seriously because on occasions it can be fatal. I commend those journalists at The Mail on Sunday—I do not often say that—and The Guardian who have taken this issue seriously. However, I hope the Minister—and other
	hon. Members, if they know anyone on either Select Committee—will encourage colleagues to produce such a report before the general election.
	In this potpourri or smorgasbord debate, I want to move, seamlessly but briefly, to the issue of Russia, for one simple reason. I had responsibility for our relationship with Russia in the last Labour Government, and I worry that the Government, though they might now be making all the right noises, have not been doing so consistently, and therefore effectively, in relation to Russia. When they came to power, they understandably wanted to draw a line under the Litvinenko case, move on and establish better trading relations with Russia. I am delighted that they have now changed their mind and that today the Home Secretary announced a proper public inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, because we owe it to his widow, who simply has not had justice yet and is a courageous and independent-minded women.
	We also have to be clear about the case of Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in a Russian jail because he unveiled corruption in Russia while working for a British company. If we already have travel bans on some Russians coming to the UK, we should surely be saying that everyone involved in that corruption and murder is not welcome in this country. This House passed that resolution unanimously on 7 March 2012, and instead of all the mealy-mouthed nonsense I have heard on the eight occasions I have asked this question, the Government should get on and announce such a ban. This is a cross-party issue. France and Germany are showing a dereliction of duty in their relationship with Russia, which will always want to pick off one country after another in Europe and end up with a free pass. We have to stand together and show that Russia is currently acting more like Hitler in the Sudetenland than a modern, 21st century democracy.

Bob Blackman: The benefit of these Adjournment debates is that they give Members in all parts of the House the opportunity to raise a range of issues. For once—for, probably, the only time—I agreed with every single word that was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about both football and Russia.
	I intend to raise a range of issues during the time that is available to me. Let me say first that yesterday in Westminster Hall I initiated a debate on the second largest e-petition that we have received in the House, asking for Diwali and Eid to become public holidays. I support that proposal, and also believe that Rosh Hashanah should be added to the list. Ensuring that we held a debate on the issue certainly livened up the public.
	This year saw the creation of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, which I chair. The issue of caste legislation has caused deep upset and hurt in the British Hindu community. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research looked into the issue of caste discrimination back in December 2010 and found no evidence of its being a problem, but British Hindus who are now second and third generation have been immensely offended by the idea of caste being enshrined in legislation when it has nothing to do with their lives or community in this country. That is one issue that I believe we shall take further when we return after the recess.
	I am, however, pleased that Hindus are better represented in Parliament than ever before, with more events taking place here which bring the community right to us. For example, the National Council of Hindu Temples has just launched the British Board of Hindu Scholars, which is intended to foster a better understanding of India’s vast academic heritage here in Britain. I was pleased to lend my support to that project, along with other Members of Parliament, and I wish its chairman, Satish Sharma, every success. I have also had meetings in Parliament with members of Hindu groups such as the Redbridge Hindu association, which voiced its deep concerns about violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.
	While I am on the subject of international affairs, I cannot but mention what is going on in Gaza, and what has led to this terrible humanitarian tragedy. We must not forget that three Israeli teenagers were brutally murdered, and that responsibility lies with the despicable terrorist organisation Hamas. We must remember that the Israeli Government accepted every single proposal for a ceasefire, and Hamas refused because it regards a ceasefire as a surrender. We in Britain must ensure that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money goes to Hamas or its supporters, and I shall continue to press Ministers on that. We must ensure that Israel’s security is safeguarded.
	I also want to raise some local matters. The 25 acres of Whitchurch playing fields are now being protected for the public good following a threat to turn them over to private developers. I am delighted that Harrow council has approved the application by Avanti Schools Trust to build the largest free school in the country. It will be a faith school based on the Hindu ethos. The project will reach the planning permission stage when we return after the recess, and I trust that Harrow council will grant that permission. Krishna Avanti primary school, which is nearby, is already a free school, and has been an overwhelming success. The high educational standards have created a huge demand for places. Once the new site is established, the school will accommodate 1,680 pupils from reception to year 12, and I think that that is something that we can all applaud.
	Another new free school in Harrow, sponsored by the London Diocesan Board for Schools, is to be a bilingual primary school. It is on course to open, and to relieve the enormous pressure on primary school places. I look forward to the progress of that project through its various stages. We also have the Heathlands multi-academy site, which will provide a further 750 secondary school places and 150 places in the sixth form, thus combating the great need for school places in the borough of Harrow.
	Those who have had the opportunity to visit my constituency may have travelled there on the Jubilee line and reached Stanmore station. If they have done so, they will have faced Mount Eiger: the steps that lead from the platform to the street. One has to be extremely physically fit to alight at that station, but many of my constituents are elderly or suffer from various ailments. There is a desperate need for a lift to be installed at the station. However, there are even more serious issues connected with the car park.
	The car park is filled up all the time, and I have led the campaign for 10 years to get a second, or even a third, layer on this car park to ensure it can be used by all travellers. The fact is that the Stanmore car park is
	used as the car park for Wembley stadium, although perhaps after England’s lack of prowess at the last World cup we should not have to worry about that too much. We will continue at a local level to lobby Transport for London and the Mayor of London to have this lift put in and to improve the car parking facilities.
	Continuing my little tour of my constituency, I want to mention the new development of 120 flats at Anmer Lodge in Stanmore, which I raised, as those who were present may remember, in the Easter Adjournment debate. The project is clearly far too big for the area, and will be a very dense development in an area of widespread housing. The development of Stanmore broadway and the opportunity to have a Marks & Spencer store are welcomed by many residents, but the position of the development presents an unacceptable challenge.
	Recently I took the Secretary of State for Health to the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore, where we discussed the redevelopment of the site. Over the last 35 years Governments of all persuasions have promised that the buildings will be replaced. We are still waiting. We are campaigning, and the medical staff do a brilliant job in portakabins and Nissen huts. I am determined that we rebuild that hospital for the benefit of patients and the medical staff who do such a diligent job in their area.
	Moving on to Edgware, we once again have the issue of Barnet football club—an issue the Deputy Leader of the House will recall. The lives of my local residents in Edgware have been plagued by Barnet football club coming to the Hive. The club acts in a bizarre manner: it just decides what it is going to do and then tries to get retrospective planning permission for its oversized stand and floodlights. That was rejected and an enforcement notice was issued, but the club threatened all sorts of legal action and eventually the council backed down. Not only did the club do that, but it introduced London Broncos to the site, and that move was so successful that London Broncos has lost every single match in the super league and has been relegated for the first time in its history. Barnet football club begins its second season in my constituency, and we will see what happens to it in the season ahead.
	The Hive is not the only addition on Whitchurch lane in my constituency. We also have a Tesco Express being set up, which is opposed by many residents, and this is probably going to be one of the areas where Tesco has sought to get permission but has backed off. The pressure from local residents is clearly beginning to tell.
	In closing, I will briefly take us to two other high streets. The first is Burnt Oak broadway, which is cleaned by Brent council and by Barnet council, but Harrow council leaves it neglected. The other is Harrow Weald high street, where once again Harrow Weald residents have been suffering because the local bank branch is going to close later this week. We have campaigned against that: we have called on NatWest not to do it, but once again it has refused.
	I end on the issue of the hated “no right turn” on Kenton road. I am all in favour of turning right and it is regrettable that the councils of Harrow and Brent cannot get their act together and remove this hated “no right turn” off the Kenton road, which local residents want so they can access their properties and the local area.
	Finally, I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all Members and members of staff a thoroughly good summer, and I look forward to hearing about some action from my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House in reply to this wonderful speech that I have made.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I know very well all the places in his constituency he mentioned, and I am looking forward to spending more time at those locations campaigning for Uma Kumaran, his replacement next year. He raised one particularly interesting scenario for me: the fitness challenge of climbing the steps of Stanmore station. In between campaigning for Uma Kumaran, I am training for the London triathlon on Sunday 3 August and I might just come to Stanmore station and take that challenge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to join me when I do.
	I wish to come back to something the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) began his remarks with: the disappointment with the performance of the England football team at the World cup. He suggested, I think in jest, that we should boycott premier league matches because there are too many overseas players. I think that the competition foreign players bring to the premier league is a good thing, but a more comprehensive look at how the interests of fans who want England to do well and who support premier league clubs needs to be thought about, particularly so that those interests can be properly represented in the governance of premier league clubs. Surely it is not an unreasonable ask to have a fan on the board of each club, elected through its football supporters trust—that might be a good thing, in order to ensure that the interests of ordinary football fans are properly represented.
	Swansea City stands out as a lone example, as it has genuine fans, elected through the supporters trust, sitting on the board and taking part in all the decisions it makes in the interests of the club. The premier league needs to think through with a little more gusto how Swansea’s example might be replicated. Similarly, an audit of each premier league club’s contribution to grass-roots sport is surely also overdue. Each club should be expected to contribute at least 5% immediately, rising to perhaps some 10%, of TV income to the coaching of the next generation of England’s football fans and players. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask clubs to invest such sums in grass-roots sport in the areas around them.
	Let me move on to my second issue. There is a need to review the funding formula for Harrow council and for the NHS in Harrow. The council faces some £75 million in funding cuts over the next four years—£25 million in this year alone. Other nearby councils receive substantially higher per capita funding, so I strongly support the campaign for Harrow council to receive fair funding. I hope that the Minister who is sitting on the Bench today might solicit a letter to me from the Department for Communities and Local Government about Harrow council’s case.
	Had NHS England decided to implement the new funding formula it devised, the NHS in Harrow would have received an extra £23 million this year, and indeed
	next. I say gently that perhaps if the Government had not wasted £3 billion on a completely unnecessary reorganisation of the NHS, NHS England might have been able to find more quickly the funding that will be needed to ease the pressure at Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Harrow East. The board of The North West London Hospitals NHS Trust has identified an extra 120 beds as necessary just to cope with the existing demand—that is before the closure of Ealing’s accident and emergency department and that of Central Middlesex hospital. That money might also have helped to stop the closure of the Alexandra Avenue urgent hours centre, or polyclinic. It used to be open from 8 am to 8 pm, 365 days a year, providing a hugely valuable service to many of my constituents in the south-west of the borough of Harrow. Sadly, the centre is now open only from 9 am to 4 pm on Saturdays and Sundays, and that situation urgently needs reviewing.
	The last issue I wish to touch on is reform of the UK’s pension fund market. It is an almost £3 trillion market, and automatic enrolment is bringing a further 10 million working people into the private pension system. In theory, through our pension and savings funds, we each own a stake in various companies, and have a say in how those companies are run. In practice, that is nonsense. Instead such power is concentrated in the hands of small number of financial institutions, the pension and savings fund managers or their appointees. They are the ones who, in practice, exercise the power of shareholders. Those institutions, I gently suggest to the Minister, should surely be accountable to our constituents who invest their savings and pension funds. To all intents and purposes, that accountability is largely a myth at the moment. A more accountable investment system is arguably overdue. Savers should surely have guaranteed rights to scrutinise decisions that are made on their behalf by the people who manage their money—the institutional investors.
	At the moment, savers have very limited rights to information about what their money is being invested in. Should our constituents not be able to find out how those institutional investors are using shareholder rights that are being exercised in their name? Our constituents should also have access to information about the strategy of the pension or savings fund into which they have put their money, and the risks that are attached to that strategy. Surely they should be able to see an annual report on how the fund has implemented its investment policy over the year and how it plans to mitigate any risks in future.
	Our constituents should also be able to question the people who look after their money. Is an annual meeting that much of an unreasonable ask? After all, it is only what companies with normal shareholders have to do. I understand that Legal and General is about to do exactly that, but most of its rivals in the savings market do not have any plans to ape it.
	Should our constituents not have the right to be consulted on the investment and voting policies of the institutional investors into whose trust they place their savings and pensions? Should our constituents not also have the right to elect representatives on to the board or governing committee of the pension fund in which they are investing? These are sensible rules that would make the pension and savings fund market a little more
	accountable. They have been developed by the excellent organisation ShareAction, and I commend them to the House.

Chris Skidmore: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for this important debate, which has become a highlight of the parliamentary calendar. We can hear MPs discussing a range of local and national issues—a smorgasbord, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) called it.
	Today I want to speak about one local issue, which is of tremendous importance to my constituents. Cossham hospital now lies just outside the Kingswood constituency, but it is very much at the heart of local people’s feelings. People in Kingswood have come there to be born, to die, to be treated and to be cared for. My mother was a nurse for 40 years. She was inspired by the idea of nursing in the 1960s when, as a child, she had her tonsils out. She then went on to have a career in the NHS. I had the pleasure of attending an ante-natal class at Cossham on Monday—[Hon. Members: “Hear! Hear! Congratulations.”] Thank you very much.
	Cossham hospital is currently facing a threat, which relates to a promised minor injuries unit. Before I go into that, let me give Members a bit of context. The history of Cossham hospital is inextricably linked with the history of the House of Commons. The land was gifted by Kingswood MP Handel Cossham who actually died in the House of Commons Library. He was a collier who owned a lot of land, and he decided to gift this land to set up a hospital. When people talk about Cossham hospital, they are talking about not just a superb NHS facility but a hospital that belongs to the people of Kingswood. A huge amount of time and effort has been invested in this local facility.
	Back in 2004, local NHS health care bosses at North Bristol NHS Trust decided to close Cossham. It was thanks to the enormous campaign and the marches of the Save Cossham Hospital group, which was then run by Graham Kennedy, that the local health bosses changed their mind and decided to keep the hospital open. I met the commissioner to talk about that decision, and he said that at the time they had been absolutely determined to close Cossham but that it was superb that it was open and that that had been exactly the right thing to do. That is worrying, because local health care commissioners who admit they have made mistakes in the past are, I believe, going on to make those mistakes in future.
	After Cossham hospital was threatened with closure in 2004, the Bristol health services plan decided to keep it open, offering a wide range of services and a £19 million refurbishment, which has now happened. I am incredibly grateful for that refurbishment, but a minor injuries unit was also promised for Cossham hospital and that has yet to be delivered. South Gloucestershire clinical commissioning group is holding off the decision on whether to put in that minor injuries unit until October.
	My worry for Kingswood and the eastern region of Bristol is that we will simply no longer have the health care facilities we deserve in our region. The decision to downgrade Frenchay hospital accident and emergency was, I believe, a disgrace. My hon. Friend the Member
	for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and I have campaigned and called for several debates on the closure of Frenchay A and E and we are continuing to campaign to ensure that the community hospital at Frenchay is delivered for 2016. People in our area of Bristol and South Gloucestershire need the health care facility that a minor injuries unit would provide. It simply is not good enough for them to travel all the way around Bristol to go to the new super-hospital at Southmead. It is too far, and in some cases it might endanger people’s lives.
	The minor injuries unit is still there to be put in and the room is empty. I call on South Gloucestershire CCG to think again and to listen to the voices of local people, particularly the Save Cossham Hospital group, which is now ably run by Reg Bennett. Reg has skilfully taken the politics out of the issue so that we have Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and the UK Independence party members lined up and agreeing that we need a minor injuries unit at Cossham hospital.
	I have more than 1,000 petition signatures that I would like to give to Reg and the group to add to the thousands they have already collected. They are having a local meeting at Warmley community hall this Saturday. Unfortunately, for personal family reasons to do with the antenatal classes I mentioned earlier I will be unable to attend that meeting, but my message to all those who attend is that they should keep fighting. As their local MP, I am absolutely determined that they should get the minor injuries unit. If they do not, there is a clear and present danger that local people in my area will be let down. Everybody pays for the NHS through their taxes and they deserve health care facilities at local points of need. They should keep fighting for Cossham hospital and for an MIU. I hope that the campaign will be successful and I will back it all the way.

Valerie Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who was formerly a member of the Select Committee on Health. It is good to see that he has not lost his interest in the health service and that he is keeping up the population at the same time.
	These debates are always a good time to raise various issues on behalf of our constituents, and a number of Members have already touched on the theme I want to pursue, which is the relationship between the people and those who make decisions for them and why it is becoming such a struggle for people when their voice is not heard. This was mentioned by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and for Kingswood and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas). In particular, I want to cover how local authorities consult local people. I also want to touch on the NHS and access to treatment and services.
	Let me start with the subject of consultation and illustrate it with three examples from Walsall South. In Stafford road, speed humps were installed and residents and I met council officers for a further consultation on removing them because of the noise and vibration they created. The consultation resulted in 34 out of 43 residents wanting the speed humps to be removed. One hundred and forty-eight people were contacted and 43 responded, but the council counted the 105 non-responses as though they were in favour, and therefore kept the speed humps against the wishes of local people.
	Darlaston road residents contacted me to say that there had been a number of incidents, including one in which a four-year-old boy had to be airlifted to safety after a car had hit him. There have been other near misses. Residents want a signal-controlled crossing and presented a petition with 300 signatures to that effect, but still nothing has been done. Does someone really have to be injured before action is taken and before my constituents’ voices are heard?
	On Walstead road, residents have had to suffer a traffic calming scheme that they did not want. A consultation took place in July for three weeks. Some people were on holiday; some were about to go on holiday. Traffic humps were bolted down along the road. They were different from any I had ever seen before. I have been over them and—you would not believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker—I had to clench my neck because it was so painful. One was placed near a traffic light and one by a zebra crossing. Local resident Tracy Clifford carried out a survey after they were installed, and 97 people responded, of which 73 reported that they had difficulty with noise or when they reversed their car out of their drive. The traffic island gets in the way and then they are abused by passing car drivers just for coming out of their driveway.
	At our second meeting, residents came up with a valuable suggestion about having different solutions for different parts of the road. If only they had been consulted and listened to properly. Will the Deputy Leader of the House ask Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government to introduce some guidance on how consultations take place with local people? When my office rang the information lines of neighbouring local authorities—Birmingham, Sandwell, Stafford county council and Wolverhampton—they were told that non-responses were not counted as responses in favour, and they placed all their consultations on their website. Bristol city council has seven principles, the first of which is that consultations should be well timed and sufficient time should be allowed for people to respond. That, along with the other six principles, is eminently sensible. Guidance should be issued throughout England to make sure that non-responses are not counted as responses in favour. As one person said to me at a local residents meeting, if we do not vote in an election, we do not expect our non-vote to be counted as a vote for the winning party.
	The residents of the park homes at Beacon Heights cannot get a bus at night. Centro conducted its survey in the afternoon when no one was using the buses. The residents did not want a bus service in the afternoon; the 65 residents want a bus service on Saturday and Sunday evenings. They are elderly, and that bus is all they need. We need my constituents to be listened to.
	Our constituents need more information and transparency. Many complain to me about their local GP service, Sai Medical. Their complaints went unheeded by the surgery. They were told that they had to complain to the patient advice and liaison service. They were never seen by the same doctor, only by a continuous supply of locums. I had to have a meeting with the local clinical commissioning group, which told me that Malling Health, a company based in Kent, had a contract with NHS England. The Library found out that the Care Quality Commission had issued a damning report on this company.
	Malling Health at West Kingsdown medical centre used to hire staff who were not qualified to work with patients and had not been through recruitment checks, and there were no effective systems in place to prevent infection. Malling Health’s contract was terminated at the Brambles surgery in Essex. My constituents were right to complain, yet their voices were not heard. We do not have information. I did not have any information that Malling Health was running the GP surgery, yet the Government have just passed regulations under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. and with the care.data programme they want to know every single piece of information about citizens.
	I made a simple request for a constituent to have an insulin patch pump. I had to write to the Department of Health, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and all my constituent’s GPs to get a vital service. A 13-year-old already has bruises on her leg from having to inject insulin every day, and she will have to do it for the rest of her life unless she has a pump. We should be listening to people and nurturing them, not placing obstacles in the way when they raise issues.
	The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) talked about the reshuffle. I was pleased to see that the Leader of the House is now the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). Mr Deputy Speaker, you may already have had the benefit of Mr Speaker’s impersonation of the right hon. Gentleman. Now, every Thursday morning, we will have to listen to Mr Speaker refining his impersonations. I hope you will take the message back that they actually go on for far—too—long.

Bob Stewart: Very good.

Valerie Vaz: May I also congratulate the women of the 2010 intake, and tell them, on behalf of the other women members of that intake, that we all knew they could do it? I ask them to bear in mind what Ginger Rogers said—that women have to do it backwards and in high heels. From one Rogers to another, I would like to say goodbye and good luck to Sir Robert Rogers, who was very helpful to me personally. He was very accessible and he gave me a copy—which I bought—of his wonderful tome “How Parliament Works”, which I have consulted on many an occasion. I wish him good luck.
	Finally, I know it is not a popular thing to do, but I would like to thank the people who work in the public services, especially those who work in the passport office, who, every time I have asked for an intervention, have produced the passport for my constituents. Thank you to them—and to all the exhausted teachers, who do their job nurturing the next generation. I also want to thank the Library staff for their independent and impartial research and statistics in support of my work, and all the House staff. Lastly, I want to wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all the other Members a very happy recess.

Jason McCartney: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who raised a number of very local issues. We particularly enjoyed all her impersonations. She may get some extra bookings after that.
	For tabloid purposes, we are about to head off to a sun-kissed exotic beach for seven weeks, but, back in the real world of being a local MP representing the area
	my family and friends live in, I am looking forward to a busy, energetic summer, which will include my annual volunteering week. I will be supporting local businesses, which are expanding, providing new jobs and apprenticeships. I am doing lots of charity runs and charity bike rides, following on from the Tour de France, which came through my constituency a couple of weeks ago. I will be holding lots of advice surgeries. Oh, and I will be squeezing in a one-week break to recharge my batteries.
	In the next seven minutes, I want to focus on by far and away the biggest local issue in my beautiful part of West Yorkshire—planning. The picturesque Colne and Holme valleys and Lindley are under threat from Labour-run Kirklees council, which is hellbent on supporting unsustainable house building. It is riding roughshod over local communities who are already struggling with infrastructure that is at breaking point. We—and yes, I say we, as I live in the lovely village of Honley—are desperate to preserve what is left of our green countryside in an already congested part of Yorkshire. Fair play, though, to Labour-run Kirklees; they are up front about it. They want to build houses, they want to build lots of them, and they want to build them on green fields. Even Labour’s local election candidates are honest enough to put it on the front of their election leaflets, and I praise them for their honesty.
	Tomorrow night I will be joining Lindley community campaigners at Birchencliffe cricket club for the Save Grimescar Valley campaign meeting. We are fighting plans to turn a lovely, picturesque green strip of countryside, which separates Kirklees from Calderdale, into housing and industrial units. Thornhill Estates is applying for planning permission for 200 dwellings on provisional open land in Grimescar valley, and in doing so resuscitating the Kirklees gateway project. The Kirklees gateway project comprises 260 hectares—650 acres—of commercial and residential development with plans for a school, care home and eco-centre, although no nursery places. Lindley is already scarred by a similar controversial plan, which was passed three years ago, for 287 houses on Lindley Moor; a narrow 8-7 vote on the planning committee, with the casting vote by a Liberal Democrat councillor, saw the scheme go ahead.
	The threat to Grimescar valley is the latest in a series of applications on provisional open land designated in the old unitary development plan for Kirklees, which is now decades old. Local wishes are being brushed aside. Labour-run Kirklees does not have a local plan; it withdrew its original, flawed plan in October 2013, and we await the start of a new one. As a result, we have a developers’ free-for-all: the old unitary development plan means that land designated as provisional open land is up for grabs. As well as Grimescar valley, developments are going ahead or being planned in Netherthong, Upperthong, Meltham, Slaithwaite, Golcar and many more of my Yorkshire communities. I have already brought the chief executive of Kirklees council and some of my local councillors down to meet the previous planning Minister, and I look forward to discussing these pressing planning matters with the new Minister.
	We need a new and radical approach to local development. Confidence in local democracy and the Kirklees planning committee is at rock bottom. We need transparency on the planning committee. Why not have it streamed live and the votes recorded? Councillors
	need to be held to account for their votes. I am fed up of local councillors saying that they want to protect our green spaces, and then getting into bed with the local Labour group and voting for unsustainable developments. Yes, we need a brownfield first policy. Why is the Thirstin Mills area, a cleared brownfield site in my village of Honley, still empty? It has planning permission; why not build there, instead of on a greenfield site? Why is the Royd Edge dyeworks site, cleared at great expense, still empty? It has planning permission and is ready to go ahead.
	Why are affordable homes that have been built in new developments across my patch still empty? Work is being done to bring thousands of empty properties and homes back into use, and I praise the Government for introducing new council tax powers to encourage owners to do up the properties and bring them back into use, by letting them out or selling them. Grants have been made to local councils, including through the future home builders plan, in which young unemployed people learn skills such as carpentry, plumbing and how to be an electrician by working on those properties, which are then brought back on to the market as affordable homes. Those are the sort of schemes we should be promoting and encouraging to bring empty properties in our communities back into use. They are sustainable because people who live in those homes do not need two cars: they can walk to local shops and local schools.
	Let us regenerate our town centres. Why not encourage folk to live above vacant shops to stimulate those areas and have people living in them 24 hours a day? My award-winning Huddersfield university investing millions of pounds in new quality student accommodation will release thousands of properties formerly used by students—although they will need some investment. Let us stop doing the easy thing—and the cheapest thing for developers. Let us get smart, and let us protect our beautiful green countryside in West Yorkshire. The battle to save Grimescar valley begins in earnest tomorrow evening. I am up for the fight and so are hundreds—nay, thousands—of local folk, who really love where we live.
	I would like to wish all hon. Members a very happy summer. As well as working hard, I hope we all get a chance to recharge our batteries. I thank all the wonderful staff here in the House of Commons, and I would like to pick out Betty, down in the Terrace cafeteria, who always has a smile and a lovely word for my children when they visit during the summer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who will become a father in just three weeks’ time—he will have a very busy summer indeed. Mr Deputy Speaker, have a lovely summer. We look forward to seeing you again in September.

George Mudie: The one thing I agree with the last speaker on is that Betty is wonderful. She deserves the congratulations and the compliments.
	I want to raise the issue of adults with autism and the possible problems the Care Act 2014 may bring. The Department is consulting on the criteria for support, and there are fears that adults’ eligibility to receive support could be damaged. I do not think that I need to take up the House’s time describing the condition. It is a terrible, life-long condition that damages and constrains
	a person from childhood to death, with no cure in sight. The fact that support can be withdrawn from adults with autism should concern the House.
	It is wrong to think that children with autism are in a better situation than adults with the condition, but they have the support of legislation and they are surrounded by professionals, for example in schools. If those professionals are doing their job, support should be forthcoming. If the local authority is doing its job, it will be encouraging support and paying for it. However, too many adults with autism slip below the radar once they reach the age of 25 and lose what support they had, often with disastrous consequences.
	The national criteria propose that the present banding of low, moderate, substantial and crucial be substituted with a sole criterion comparable to the present “substantial” definition. Although that gives some comfort to people across the country that support will not be determined by postcode, there is a worry that those people with needs that could be described as lower than substantial will have their support withdrawn.
	That raises the difficulty of withdrawing the existing requirement for local authorities to provide support to individuals at risk of abuse or neglect. Some adults with autism can struggle to understand the intention of others. That can lead to them being taken advantage of and even abused by people they often think are their friends. Low-level support, such as one-to-one counselling sessions on understanding relationships and boundaries, can reduce the risk of a vulnerable person with autism becoming a victim of abuse. However, under the criteria in the regulations, that low-level support could be withdrawn.
	Let me give the House some figures. The National Autistic Society has found that
	“49% of adults with autism… told us they had been abused by someone they thought of as a friend, 27% have had money or possessions stolen by someone they thought of as a friend, and 37% have been forced or manipulated to doing something they didn’t want to do by someone they thought of as a friend.”
	It is therefore very important that the regulations are tweaked to stop that happening.
	The regulations propose that the inability to maintain relationships should make a person eligible for assistance, but forming or developing relationships in the first place is something that people with autism often need specific help with. Without that support, they can be particularly vulnerable to social isolation. According to the National Autistic Society,
	“65% of adults told us they need prompting to wash, dress or prepare a meal. 86% of adults who need prompting have not washed, 70% have missed meals and 69% have not got dressed because they didn’t get this help.”
	It quotes one individual:
	“I don’t eat. I don’t change clothes, nothing except maybe get a drink of water and go to the bathroom when I can’t hold it anymore. Don’t take my meds either. I can lose entire days and nights that way.”
	That is what is at stake. In the regulations, the definition used for determining whether an adult with autism gets support is “to be unable”. Those familiar with autism consider that that should be extended to include guidance and prompting. Someone with autism might be physically capable of carrying out a basic act of personal care, but
	often they need to be prompted, reminded or guided to do it. Prompting, in that case, means reminding, encouraging and explaining, by another person verbally or through the use of visual aids.
	My last point is that adults with autism should receive community care assessments from people with specific expertise in autism, because someone who is not aware of the varied and hidden aspects of autistic behaviour could fail to understand that adult or could make the wrong decision as a result of being primarily influenced by the physical appearance of the individual. That has happened, and is happening, with disability examinations when mental health problems and their debilitating effects are not given due and vital attention by medical examiners who lack detailed mental health knowledge and tend to concentrate on the claimant’s physical aspects.
	It is very important that I raise this issue in the debate, because the regulations are being formed now and will probably come to the House immediately after the recess. If that is the case, they will be secondary legislation, which is not amendable, so the current consultations and discussions with bodies such as the National Autistic Society have to be sympathetic and take on board those points. Otherwise, people who are already damaged will be damaged further, because we will not be able to change the regulations.
	I will end on that note and wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the staff—particularly Betty, and Noeleen, Mary and Margaret in the Tea Room—and other Members a short but happy recess.

Martin Vickers: I want to take the opportunity provided by this debate to reflect on two cases involving constituents of mine that have caused me to ask, yet again, what can be done to relieve individuals and businesses of petty regulation and, more particularly, the powers given to officials to interpret the vast amount of legislation and regulation that comes forth from Government, the European Union, local authorities and the ever-increasing agencies of Government. The two cases are also linked to an inquiry being carried out by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, into the accountability of executive agencies and quangos, or non-departmental public bodies.
	Mr Gary Rockhill of the Dovedale hotel in Cleethorpes has been having a little local difficulty with the planning department of North East Lincolnshire council. It is not uncommon for small businesses to cross swords with the planners and I make no particular comment as to the rights and wrongs of the case. I merely want to address the powers available to enforce regulations.
	When Mr Rockhill attended my surgery, he outlined the problems he is encountering, one of which related to the display of an A-board outside his premises. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have served as councillors, will, I am sure, be familiar with these advertising displays, which seem to be so disliked by planners. Of course, councils should have powers to prevent A-boards from blocking the pathway if they are causing problems for pedestrians, the disabled, those with pushchairs and the like, but my question is: should those powers be as extensive as they are?
	On 9 April, Mr Rockhill received a letter form Cofely, the council’s partner organisation, which enforces and administers the council’s planning functions. It stated:
	“I am writing to you regarding the above property and the illegal advertisement you have placed on St Peters Avenue, Cleethorpes.
	In connection with this investigation, the Council would like to invite you to a formal interview under caution at the Council offices. The caution states”—
	these are familiar words—
	“‘You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be taken in evidence.’ The reason for the interview under caution is that the Council suspects that an offence has been committed, and before any questions are put to you about your involvement or suspected involvement in that offence, the caution should be given so that your answers or silence may be given in Court in evidence.”
	I remind Members that this is in connection not with burglary, drunken driving or any of the more serious offences, but with the alleged nuisance and inconvenience caused by displaying an A-board.
	On behalf of Mr Rockhill, I wrote to the council’s chief executive:
	“It would seem that sending out letters of this kind is, to say the least, heavy-handed. This is not a serious crime but a case of placing an A-board on the pavement…I am well aware that these are a potential hazard in certain circumstances though I have to say that, in my experience, the potential hazards seem to be in the eyes of officials rather than in reality. I would be very happy to walk around Cleethorpes with you when it is very easy to come across scores of examples of highway authority signs, lighting columns, litter bins etc that are a far more serious obstruction than Mr Rockhill’s signs.”
	As I anticipated, I received a reply explaining that the council was acting perfectly properly, and in line with current legislation. Of course, councils need powers to deal with violations that cause inconvenience to those they serve, but are we seriously saying that we need such a heavy-handed approach? My question for the Minister is: should a Government who are both Liberal and Conservative allow such legislation to remain on the statute book?
	My second example relates to another constituent, Mr Ernest Cromer. On Friday 20 June, Mr Cromer featured in Richard Littlejohn’s column in the Daily Mail, and he visited my constituency surgery on the same day. Mr Cromer is a former trawler skipper and, as Mr Littlejohn’s article states, he
	“retains his love of the sea and fishing.”
	The article continues:
	“His daily exercise consists of walking 60 yards out into the”—
	Humber—
	“estuary to inspect his net tethered on the mud-flats to catch fish on the incoming tide. It’s a method used by locals on the banks between Grimsby and Cleethorpes for generations. On a good day, he might catch two Dover sole... Some days the net is empty. But if he catches more than a couple of fish, he gives them away to friends and neighbours.”
	In no way can his operation be described as a commercial one. It does not sound as though it is akin to some foreign trawler moving in and hoovering up tons of fish. Do we really need the vast array of officialdom to protect us or, indeed, the natural resources of our seas and coastlines? On the 21 June, Mr Cromer’s story was covered by the Grimsby Telegraph, with comments from both me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) in his support.
	Immediately following Mr Cromer’s visit to my surgery, I wrote to the North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority to express my concerns at yet another example of officialdom acting in a high and heavy-handed manner. A few days later, I received a reply from the authority’s chief officer, who I am sure has acted entirely properly and diligently in busily interpreting the vast array of legislation, rules and regulations that nowadays appear to be necessary to protect the natural environment. The first paragraph of his reply expressed his concerns:
	“I would like to register my disappointment”
	about
	“public statements by your office, for your constituent’s position.”
	Well, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for defending my constituent’s position: I regard it as a fundamental part of the role of a Member of Parliament to defend constituents against the might of the bureaucracy.
	The letter states that the statutory authority for the NEIFCA is the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, as updated by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The particular regulation covering Mr Cromer’s activities was first made in the early 1990s under section 5 of the 1966 Act and section 37(2) of the Salmon Act 1986. Apparently, there are 22 regulations in force in NEIFCA’s area to protect species including salmon, sea trout and eels. I do not doubt that serious thought went into making the regulations, and that there was a need to protect some species from illegal activity, but I cannot help asking why these species are still in existence when the Mr Cromers of this world have been doing for centuries exactly what Mr Cromer is now doing. If he used modern methods—as I mentioned, they can hoover up a vast tonnage of fish—I could understand it, but is it really being suggested that a couple of fish in his net every day will cause such major problems?
	As an aside, the same applies to the vast array of industry on the Humber bank and elsewhere. From the 1950s onwards, vast swaths of land on the south bank of the Humber have been developed for industry—power stations, oil refineries and other heavy industry. That was done without all the environmental regulations that now apply to protect migratory birds, yet the birds are still there. The birds are now in need of protection that delays investment and the associated jobs. I have asked representatives from Natural England and other organisations why the birds survived the previous industrial development. As yet, I have received no convincing reply. I assume the answer is that nature adapts.
	I do not believe that we should abandon the regulations that protect the environment across the board, but that they should be commensurate with the problem that they seek to address and that some accountability for the officials who implement them is essential. In the case of the IFCA, there is an advisory council, but how closely it monitors the activities of its officials is open to doubt.
	The NEIFCA pointed out in its reply to me that the original article was inaccurate in linking the story to Europe. I am always keen to blame the EU and the link in the article was implied rather than factual. It did not blame a specific regulation or directive for Mr Cromer’s plight, but drew attention to the fact that the destruction of the fishing industry is linked to our EU membership, which is quite right. Admittedly, the Icelandic cod wars played a part in the demise of the industry, but the hostility
	to the local community of what was the Common Market and is now the EU remains. I do not care whether it is the EU or successive British Governments that have introduced the regulations, but there needs to be discretion in the way they are implemented.
	To return to the letter that I received from the NEIFCA, it states that
	“unfortunately and hopefully as you will appreciate, we cannot make one rule for one and not another and however well meaning, to allow a specific exception for Mr Cromer would in my view place the Humber Estuary at significant risk of environmental impact, resulting in completely unregulated and uncontrollable levels of activity, killing sensitive migratory fish and eel species…and placing the general public at risk.”
	Really?
	To conclude, we hear frequently that the prosecuting authorities, sometimes in serious criminal cases, have decided against prosecution because it is not in the public interest, yet for poor Mr Cromer, who is accused of catching a couple of fish each day, there can be no exception and no discretion. As the NEIFCA states,
	“as you will hopefully understand, this specific byelaw regulation is in place for very sound reasons and my officers provide advice and enforce their provisions in a very even-handed and fair manner right across the board.”
	Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to differ.

Lindsay Hoyle: Marvellous.

Meg Hillier: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow a number of other hon. Members who have spoken about housing, which is one of the issues that I want to raise. However, unlike the Members for the valleys—the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney)—who are against houses being built in their areas, and especially in greenfield areas, I would like to see more houses in my borough of Hackney and in London as a whole.
	There were 671 new starts in Hackney South and Shoreditch in 2013, which compares with a constituency average in the UK of 185. Clearly, the average is a curious figure because it includes areas where development is more challenging for all sorts of reasons, but it shows that in one small London borough, where there is a will, more homes can be built.
	I declare an interest in that I am a landlady. There are a large number of private renters in my constituency. We need housing across the board because London and Hackney continue to grow. The price rises are incredible because of the great shortage. More people rent privately than own housing in my constituency, and the number of people who rent social housing in my borough is greater than the number of people who own and rent privately combined. Hackney is one of the top two councils nationally for building new council homes. Even though that is good for Hackney, it is not enough to keep up with demand.
	I have spoken about house prices and rent levels in my constituency before, but I want to remind the House about them. According to Land Registry figures, between March 2013 and March 2014, the percentage increase in house prices was 19%, meaning that an average home now costs £525,000—just over half a million pounds—
	which is up from £441,000 a year ago. The figures that I have are the median rent levels, but many homes are much more expensive. For a typical three-bedroom home, the rent is just shy of £2,000. For a one-bedroom home, it is £1,235.
	We need more housing in Hackney in London, and probably in other parts of the country too, and we must challenge the Government’s target of setting social rents at 80% of local private rents for new social housing—something that happily Hackney council continues to resist. Those rent levels would be unaffordable for many hard-working people in my constituency, and it would hoover up and scoop out loads of people living in inner-London, and change the nature not just of a borough but of a city where people live cheek by jowl, with incomes mattering less than their contribution to the community.
	Part of the solution must be new longer-term tenancies in the private sector. Labour Front Benchers have called for three-year tenancies in the private sector, which I back. For tenants who want such tenancies that is great and should be offered, but it is not enough for families who need far more stability than a three-year tenancy. We must look seriously and cross-party—this will take time to implement—at some sort of financial incentive for private landlords who want to be long-term landlords and not just in it for the money to provide longer-term tenancies for families. It may be that they need a tax incentive or some other economic device to encourage them to provide longer-term tenancies with rent guarantees, as part of the mix of social housing more generally. That certainly needs to be part of the solution in London, to help boost the intermediate sector and make private renting a longer-term choice for those who wish to or have to take that option.
	Finally on housing, we need to abolish the bedroom tax. This is a failed policy. It is easy to say, “Oh, it’s fair because people have an extra bedroom”, but when someone has lived in a home for 30 years, or was born there, or has adult children who come and go, to suddenly be charged £14 for that extra bedroom is not fair or reasonable. Often, people’s household circumstances change periodically. I have many constituents who have fallen out of work through no fault of their own and are looking for work, but in that period they have to pay the extra out of their benefits. They do not want to leave because they are optimistic that they will get a job again. One woman who came to see me had moved from a three-bedroom property to a two-bedroom property because her eldest child had left home, and she has—temporarily, she hopes—fallen out of work. She was encouraged to move to a two-bedroom social rented property, but the rent she pays for that is higher than the rent she was paying on the three-bedroom property. Now when she looks for work, she has to look for a job that pays even more to ensure she can cover the rent. That makes her search for work even more challenging.
	Another example comes from Wenlock Barn estate in Hoxton in my constituency where more than 70 families on one estate are affected by the bedroom tax. They are not moving anywhere because those are their homes, and there are not many options that they can move down to. I challenge the Deputy Leader of the House to make clear in his response his party’s position as a party of government about the future of the bedroom tax.
	I also want to mention GP services in east London and particularly Hackney. The Government have withdrawn the minimum practice income guarantee, or MPIG, but that unsexy sounding acronym is a serious issue for my constituents. I represent one of the most deprived areas of the country—although there are huge issues around the price of housing—and many people are living in great poverty and need health care support.
	Yesterday I met Dr Sarah Williams who leads the campaign across east London to ensure we protect our GP services. Earlier this year I raised with Ministers during Health questions my concerns about how the withdrawal of the MPIG would affect the services that my constituents receive from their GPs, and I was told forcefully by the Minister that NHS England had the matter in hand. I happened to have a meeting in the next few days with NHS England and another London MP, and NHS England was clear that it was speaking with local GPs to try to find solutions to the issue. What I hear from local GPs, however, is not what I am hearing from those sources, and local GPs were unaware of the discussions that NHS England says it is having with them. Dr Williams told me, in her words, that the MPIG was introduced in 2004 “in perpetuity”, whereas Ministers have said on the record in the House that it was always supposed to be a temporary measure.
	I am therefore asking for the minimum practice income guarantee withdrawal to be frozen. One seventh has been withdrawn because it will be withdrawn over a seven-year period, but perhaps the Deputy Leader of the House could pass this question on to Department of Health Ministers: how much overall will be drawn from the most deprived areas when the minimum practice income guarantee is withdrawn? Some GPs are very much in favour of the withdrawal. If we take away money from some practices and distribute it evenly across the whole, some practices will be net gainers. Many of my constituents have arrived from other parts of the country, and many have had poorer upbringings. All the data show that poor early upbringings have a long-term impact on health. We need GP services to be tuned in to that and ensure that we have the extra provision so that we have properly funded practices. I do not see why my constituents should lose those services in order to fund services in constituencies such as, to pick random examples, Carshalton and Wallington or Surrey Heath, where the needs are markedly less great.
	In the short time I have left, I want to talk about child care, an issue I have raised many times. I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country. More than a fifth of residents are under 16. Therefore, a lot of parents of young children are struggling to make ends meet because of the cost of housing if they are living in the private rented sector or trying to buy, and because of the lottery of child care. We have good child care in Hackney, but finding the right child care when they need it is a challenge for all parents up and down the country.
	Often, we think we are lucky when we get good child care, but it should be there anyway. I am perhaps bolder than those on the Opposition Front Bench. I believe we should have a universal free provision of child care. That would have to be funded over time, but the revenue from taxpaying parents would soon cover it. Very few parents I know can afford to work full time because the cost of full-time child care is so great. They would contribute far more to the tax regime if they could.
	We should see child care as a cross-party issue. The Government are trying things, but they tinker at the edges. They are fiddling around with the tax regime and making it even more complicated for parents when we already have systems in place. Introducing a new system does not solve the problem of supply, which is the serious issue.
	As I said to the Prime Minister in the past month, broadband is a national embarrassment. I have often spoken about that but it is a national concern. We are too wedded as a country to one technology. Broadband is too expensive, particularly for small businesses, which need it when they are growing but do not have the money to spend. Business grants of £3,000 have been added in, but that is like a sticking plaster—it is a bit like worrying about the scratch on the patient’s finger when they have a broken leg. We need a comprehensive review of broadband, and plans for infrastructure and roll-out, and for a competitive framework that delivers.
	My final point is a reminder to the House that it is 100 days today since the abduction of the Chibok schoolgirls in north-eastern Nigeria. There is a demonstration today at the Nigerian embassy to ensure that we do not lose sight not just of those schoolgirls, but of the other abductions and atrocities that have taken place in Nigeria as a result of the activities of Boko Haram. As chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, I challenge the Nigerian authorities to ensure that their policing is done on human rights terms, and that there are no abuses from the security services. Not doing so would weaken the support that the international community gives to Nigeria. The state provision should be done properly and we should tackle the terrorists in the right way.

Jack Lopresti: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow so many fine speakers and speeches. I would like to raise three important constituency issues in my remarks.
	First, Great Western Air Ambulance is based in my constituency at the Filton airfield site. It is run and supported by extremely dedicated and hard-working people. Like all air ambulances, it is a charity. The team who run it have to raise the funds they need to keep it going every year. They have had to raise approximately £1.5 million a year to keep the service going. The charity receives no funding from the Government and, as a relatively new air ambulance charity, it has no cash reserves.
	The Great Western air ambulance flies approximately 1,500 missions a year and provides emergency cover for 2.1 million people in Bristol, Bath, north-east Somerset, north Somerset, Gloucestershire and parts of west Wiltshire. It is one of the few air ambulances that works to the gold-standard critical care model, which means rushing a critical care paramedic and critical care doctor to the scene. Seven days a week, 365 days a year, it can be with the casualty within 20 minutes of receiving the emergency call anywhere within the region it covers.
	On average, 20% of incidents that the Great Western air ambulance attends involve providing emergency care and transfer for children under the age of 16 and babies. The critical care team are volunteers, giving up their precious personal time to help others. Great Western Air Ambulance has managed to secure two full-time
	trainee pre-hospital emergency medicine doctors from University Hospitals Bristol medical school. I pay great tribute to Great Western Air Ambulance for its fantastic life-saving work.
	Great Western Air Ambulance needs a new helicopter. Its current helicopter, a 1972 Bölkow 105, is no longer fit for purpose. It does not have the power to land at the new elevated helipad at Bristol Royal Infirmary or at Bristol Children’s hospital. As I mentioned, 20% of its cases involve children. The helicopter is relatively slow to load up, start up, shut down and unload. The clinical stability of the patient and the confined space in the cab mean that the helicopter often cannot transport patients. Those limitations mean that patients must be transported by road. A new modern air ambulance helicopter will save time and, therefore, save lives.
	With the help of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I am supporting Great Western Air Ambulance’s charity bid for £1,020,000 from the LIBOR fund. That amount would pay for the first year of the EC135 helicopter’s running costs, allowing the charity to put its long-term financial position on a much more sustainable basis. I look forward to meeting the Chancellor to discuss this matter, along with my neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood and for Bristol North West. I will be playing a small part in fundraising for the charity by running a Bristol half-marathon in September.
	The next matter I would like to bring to the attention of the House is the need for a new junction on the M49 in my constituency. I have had previous meetings with road Ministers, and there have so far been various bids for this junction by the Highways Agency, South Gloucestershire council and, most recently, the local enterprise partnership. A new junction on the M49 would provide essential infrastructure investment to help unlock the potential of Avonmouth Severnside. Avonmouth Severnside is the largest brownfield site in western Europe, extending five miles along the Severn estuary between the north of Bristol and adjacent to the M5 and M49 motorways. Planning permission for commercial space and development has been granted, but much of the land has not yet been utilised. The new junction would link Avonmouth Severnside growth area to other key economic centres in the south-west.
	Currently, there are access issues, with industrial traffic having to go a long way around, and often through, picturesque villages. The solution is simple: a junction on the M49 that would open access across the enterprise area. The junction would be good for business, jobs and the economy, both in my constituency and across the region. Work should start without delay.
	The third issue I would like to highlight relates to the Frenchay residents user group. I would like to pay tribute to the group, which is known as RUG. It was set up as a local residents group to engage with the local community in relation to plans to redevelop the Frenchay hospital site and to ensure that local residents’ voices were heard, represented and considered. RUG has had
	some notable successes. One was to prevent the magnificent lime tree avenue on the site being chopped down, and another was to provide support to the village green application, which will preserve around 30 acres of green space in perpetuity for the local community.
	RUG has grown in strength, with more than 1,000 members. Last Sunday, it became the new Frenchay Residents Association. It has a constitution, and has elected its first president and committee. I was honoured to take part in the first meeting by proposing the new constitution and the election of the first president and committee members. The first president is Frenchay resident of more than 50 years, Bob Woodward OBE, who was honoured in the Queen’s birthday honours list this year. Bob founded the children’s leukaemia charity CLIC in 1976, after his son, Robert, was diagnosed with cancer. Sadly, Robert died in 1977, aged only 11 years old. Bob went on to raise more than £50 million for the charity and has dedicated his life to charity work, including for the Jack and Jill Children’s Foundation, the Children’s Hospice appeal and the Starfish Trust. I am sure Bob will be a fantastic president of the new residents association. I wish him and the new residents group all the very best in continuing their great work to safeguard Frenchay’s best interests.

Paul Blomfield: I do not want to comment on the many interesting contributions this afternoon, but I want to pick up one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) about the minimum practice income guarantee, which has been in the public eye in the way it affects practices in London, but also has had an impact across the country. In fact, five GP practices in Sheffield are affected, including two in my constituency. I have pressed Ministers in Health questions and met with NHS England, and I have had a similar experience—warm words and reassurances but no sign of significant practical action to alleviate the impact on those practices working with the most challenging patients in the city. Those practices face a tipping point, and I join her in urging the Government to reconsider the withdrawal of MPIG over the next seven years, because, if they do not, a number of practices will fall by the wayside.
	That was not what I rose to speak about. These debates provide a useful opportunity for us to reflect on the past year and to learn lessons for the remainder of the Parliament. I am proud to represent a multicultural constituency in a multicultural city, and I want to talk about a community that I have worked with over many years but which is feeling increasingly beleaguered: our Muslim community. It is long established in Sheffield—over three or four generations—and I have worked with it for more than 30 years, challenging extremism, since long before I was a Member of Parliament. I have to say that the extremism we have challenged over that period has largely come from the white community: from the National Front, the British National party, the English Defence League and others.
	The community now feels threatened. A community leader said to me recently:
	“People feel under attack all of the time, not in a physical way, but that they’re always under suspicion.”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) described the problem very well in a recent article in The Guardian. She said that
	“this lazy discussion (practising Muslim = extremist = on the conveyer belt to terrorism) is getting just a little tired”.
	The members of my local community are not just tired of the narrative, but worried about it. People who have worked for years to promote community cohesion say to me that the situation has never been worse. We have to act on this lesson for the remainder of the Parliament, because a toxic public discourse is developing in which religious conservatism, political extremism and national security issues are often dealt with as one when it comes to the Muslim community.
	Everyone in this place has an important role in helping to frame that public discourse—today we had a significant debate about the issue in Birmingham schools. The bullying and intimidation of staff; improper employment and governance practices; the promotion of one branch of a faith to the exclusion of others, and a lack of financial transparency are issues that we have to take extremely seriously and which should be investigated seriously, as they have been, but to frame them as an Islamist plot and to link them to terrorism by appointing the former head of the Metropolitan police’s counter-terrorism command to investigate is profoundly unhelpful, because it fuels division, rather than reducing it. As another of my Muslim constituents told me recently,
	“Everything you do is questioned, by the Government and by your neighbours. Muslims are seen as terrorists.”
	The press plays a role in creating such a climate. Newspaper headlines linking the appalling events associated with the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, in Iraq and Syria, with threats to the UK, as reflected in a recent Daily Telegraph headline, “Are the British jihadists going to turn their guns on us?”, fuel enormous suspicion. A recent article in the Evening Standard on women jihadists told the story of two 17-year-old British girls arrested at Heathrow and went on at length about the threat posed by women converting to Islamic terrorism, before pointing out that they had been released without charge. We have even witnessed hysteria over people eating halal meat. The Daily Mail described that—in a front-page horror story—as
	“a stealthy takeover of Britain’s supermarket shelves”.
	The way in which we frame discussion and the way in which we address issues need to be approached carefully. It was not helpful for the Prime Minister to contribute an article to the Daily Mail which was accompanied by a front-page headline reading “Be more British, Cameron tells UK Muslims”. A debate about British values is fine, but let us be careful how we frame it. Let us also recognise that when the Prime Minister talks about
	“a belief in freedom, tolerance of others”,
	it is not helpful for some of his Back Benchers, at the same time, to introduce private Member’s Bills to legislate for what women can and cannot wear.
	All this is not without consequence. According to Tell MAMA, a voluntary organisation with which some Members will be familiar—it measures and monitors anti-Muslim attacks, and, unfortunately, its funding has been withdrawn by the Government—the number of attacks on Muslims increased significantly over its last
	reporting period, between May 2013 and February 2014. That contrasts sharply with the general figures produced by the police and the Government on hate crime incidents.
	Careless words cause real damage. As we look forward to the remaining part of the current Parliament, there are three things that we could do. First, all of us—on all sides—need to be enormously careful about the way in which we use language, and the Government in particular need to think carefully about the way in which they frame their debate on British values. Secondly, we need to recognise the good work that is done in all communities to tackle extremism, and to recognise that extremism exists in all communities. Thirdly, we need to work harder at building community cohesion. It would be useful for the Government to reflect on the decision to cut the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government for community rights, integration and the big society from £38.6 million in 2013-14 to £27.2 million in 2014-15, at precisely the time when we need to work harder to build community cohesion. If we fail to rise to that challenge, we shall be driving communities apart when we should be pulling them together. Let us make those our objectives for the remaining months of this Parliament.

Phillip Lee: I hope that my constituents will forgive me for not mentioning my constituency or any part of it. I know that it is traditional to do so in summer adjournment debates, but for some reason we have not been given an opportunity to make speeches about the plane that was downed over the European continent, and I think that that was remiss of whoever made the decision. I think it important for us to debate that incident and the ramifications that I believe it will have in this country, in relation to its foreign and energy policies and in general.
	Indeed, I do not think that we should be adjourning today. I think that we should all be given an opportunity to reflect on such a dreadful incident. I struggle to work out what has to happen for a debate to take place when 300 people—300 innocent people—have been blown out of the sky over the European continent by a surface-to-air missile, most likely by individuals backed by proxy by a state with which we retain diplomatic relations. What needs to happen for us actually to think that it is worthy of this mother of all Parliaments to debate the implications of such an appalling occurrence?
	Three years ago, it was thought appropriate that we should extend the Session to discuss phone tapping and the influence of Rupert Murdoch on politics in this country. At the time, I commented that I thought that was out of date and that I was more concerned about the influence of Google and Facebook on politics and that Mr Murdoch was very much a man of the past. A year ago, we were recalled because of an international crime that had been committed in Syria. We all flew in from various parts of the world to participate in the debate and to discuss what was undoubtedly an appalling act. How can we witness the shooting down of a plane, with 80 or so children being blown out of the sky and landing on the ground, and a 10-year-old child being found strapped in a seat with a look of horror on its face, and not debate that?
	Britain’s role needs to be clearly defined—indeed, it needs to be redefined. We have lost a sense of what this country stands for and what it is about. We do not seem to take our responsibilities in the same way as we perhaps once did. To my mind, the 20th century was about defending, and trying to spread the value of, democracy and liberty. Will the 21st century be about the rise of autocratic regimes that we try to placate, that we want investment from, and that we want to be involved in the critical infrastructure of our nation? I find this perplexing. I am rather baffled that this generation of politicians, of all political colours, seems comfortable to engage in such commercial dealings and is prepared to look the other way when anything uncomfortable is thrown up, in order to secure an economic future—or, dare I say, because it is politically expedient to do so. That applies to both sides of the House; it is not a party political point.
	Britain at the moment finds itself in debt. The nation’s debt will have virtually doubled in this Parliament. People talk to me about austerity Britain and I look at the numbers and I think, “Well, we’re still spending more money than we’re getting in, so we clearly haven’t learned our lessons.” We remain dependent on people lending us money to service that debt and we are increasingly dependent on imported energy in the form of gas and food and the like. That level of dependency in terms of both debt and energy is perhaps one of the reasons why we look the other way when tragic events take place—events we wish we could ignore, and which may impact on our short-term geopolitical targets.
	What frustrates me even more is that wherever I look in the world, I see a dearth of true leadership. Please give me a list of names of people leading countries around the world who are strong leaders—people who are prepared to stand up for particular values and principles, and who are prepared to put men and women in the line of fire to defend those principles. I fully understand that Britain is rather war-weary—I do not want to comment on the recent exploits in various countries around the world—and that the country is, of course, thinking that this is not our problem. But when 10 Britons are blown out of the sky, and when over 190 Dutch—just remember how brave the Dutch people were in the second world war on our side—are blown out of the sky, I think it is our problem. What have we done? We have made a few telephone calls, and are threatening a few sanctions. It is just not good enough.
	I find it pretty disgraceful—in fact, I am quite embarrassed—because an international crime has taken place. We knew the location of this site—I presume there have been US satellites trained on that part of Ukraine for the past few months—so why did we not go in and secure the site? We have the capacity to do that. Why have I had to watch journalists picking through evidence? How come there were not international observers at the site within 36 or 48 hours, to protect that evidence and to secure those bodies so that they do not fester in unrefrigerated train carriages? I am rather embarrassed that we did not have the courage and did not seek to get the support of the Americans, the Dutch, the Germans or the French in order to go in and secure that site. That does not reflect well on Britain and on western democracies.
	My frustration is that there is no reason why Britain cannot be that strong nation it once was—that country that stood up for particular values and principles. We need to rediscover valuing the right things in life. We need to value invention and finding the 21st century equivalent of the Watt steam engine, which made us strong in the first place. By doing that, we would not be so dependent on these countries with which I do not want to have commercial dealings. We would not be dependent on these countries that have no concept of a free media and on countries in which human rights are a secondary, perhaps tertiary, thought. I want to be a part of a country that stands for something, that means something in the world and that is respected around the world. I fear that at the moment, because of our level of debt and of dependence, and our complete absence of any vision or leadership, we are being less of a country than we should be and most certainly less of a country than the globe desperately needs.

Diana Johnson: It was a pleasure to listen to the thought-provoking contribution of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). I had forgotten how wide-ranging and interesting the pre-recess Adjournment debate can be. We have heard contributions from hon. Members championing individuals, for example, the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) championing Mr Cromer; discussions about children’s TV programmes such as “The Herbs”, which many of us will fondly remember watching; and speeches about the role of the 1966 World cup and how West Ham was instrumental in making sure the cup was won for England. I want to make a contribution about the NHS.
	I am growing increasingly concerned about the NHS in my Hull constituency. In 2010, the NHS, both in Hull and across the country, had high levels of patient satisfaction—the highest levels in its history. Of course there were challenges in 2010, but the NHS was well placed to deal with them. Under a Labour Government, Hull had many new health centres: we had a new women and children’s hospital; a new eye hospital; a new oncology centre at the Castle Hill site, just outside Hull; and the new Hull York medical school opened in the city, so that we could produce our own doctors for the future. As an MP, I received very few complaints about the NHS then.
	In the past two years, however, especially since the wasteful £3 billion top-down NHS reorganisation, which nobody voted for and for which there was no call in the coalition agreement, things have deteriorated. I worry that the only person who seems to understand or know how the fragmented NHS now operates and fits together is the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), and I note that he is leaving the House of Commons at the next election, so I am a bit concerned about the situation we find ourselves in today. The number of complaints I have received from my constituents about the NHS has doubled in the past year, going from 16 to 34 in 2012-13. This year, I have already received 27 such complaints.
	I want to run through a few of the issues I am most concerned about, the first of which relates to parents trying to seek a diagnosis for their children where there is a concern that the child may have autism or be on the
	spectrum. The clinical commissioning group in Hull tells me that the standard for this diagnosis is supposed to be 20 weeks, but two constituents have come to me in the past few months saying that they have been told it will take more than 12 months for a child to be diagnosed. That is unacceptable. We all know that the earlier we can get children into the kind of services that will help them, the better. The outcomes will be better for those children. The CCG tells me that it is doing everything it can to address the problem, but that is not a wait that should continue for very long, and I hope the CCG is able to get it down.
	I want to raise an issue that a parent brought to me about children regarding Down’s syndrome. There is no national care pathway for this group of children. There is good practice around the country, but that good practice is not in every part of the NHS, and it should be. With the changes to the NHS and to the role of the Department of Health, I am worried that the drive to ensure best practice around the country may now be fragmented and that we may see a return of the postcode lottery.
	The headline story in today’s Hull Daily Mail is that almost 4,000 patients in East Yorkshire are now forced to wait more than 18 weeks to see a hospital consultant. The areas in which they have to wait are orthopaedics, neurology and colorectal and thoracic medicine. It is a concern that ill people have to wait to be seen.
	Finally, I have had complaints about A and E and the acute assessment unit at Hull Royal infirmary. The complaints are often about waiting times to be seen by doctors. Many people say that they think the staff are doing a good job, but are overstretched. A constituent sent me an e-mail in which she said:
	“My husband was admitted to Hull Royal Infirmary on New Year’s day with a major asthma attack due to a viral chest infection. He received excellent care by the staff both in the ambulance and those on duty. However, the overcrowding in A&E gives serious cause for concern. Many dozens of poorly people were waiting on trolleys in the corridors. The staff were run ragged.”
	She said that her husband had to wait 11 hours to get the results of an X-ray and blood test. She went on to say:
	“If A&E is the barometer of the Health Service then it is sadly in trouble. The NHS had improved so much under Labour.”
	Let me read out another case that was sent to me by my caseworker:
	“The constituent’s father had been unwell for over a year. He was admitted to Hull Royal Infirmary…where he was on the Acute Assessment Unit Ward with suspected tuberculosis. When the constituent visited him the next day, they found that: the drip in his arm had not been put into a vein; he had been laid in his own urine; there was no way for him to attract the nurse’s attention; and nobody had checked on him for 6 hours. He was discharged the following Tuesday, however he was still poorly and had difficulty walking. He still had a cannula in his arm. The constituent had to go back to the hospital to collect his medication, and she found out that the nursing staff didn’t know why he had been discharged. The constituent said she was later told by a nurse and her family’s GP that he had been sent home to die.”
	Those are just two examples from my growing postbag. I am truly shocked—I am sure that other Members are too—to hear these harrowing accounts of the care that my constituents have received.
	Admittedly, not all the problems with Hull’s NHS as reported in our recent CQC report, such as the totally unacceptable bullying culture, may be entirely made in
	Whitehall. However, these problems seem to have come to the fore in the past two years, after the NHS reorganisation.
	There is another matter that I want to raise, one that I have raised before with the Secretary of State during Health questions. The former chief executive of Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Phil Morley, suddenly resigned just before the publication of a very poor CQC report, which highlighted the bullying culture in the trust. I was shocked to read, just a few weeks later, that he has now resurfaced as the new chief executive in Harlow, Essex. I thought that the new Health Secretary was going to end this revolving door of chief executives moving from trust to trust, but he has not, and I am very anxious that we should deal with the matter.
	I am also still waiting for an answer to another question. The CQC report mentioned a shortage of junior doctors in our local hospitals. I do not understand that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we have the Hull York medical school in Hull, which was designed to train doctors for the local area, so I do not understand where the junior doctors are going.
	I also want to mention the privatisation going on under the coalition’s NHS reforms. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has tabled a private Member’s Bill that will have its Second Reading in November and would scrap the competition framework set out in the coalition’s NHS legislation. I hope that the Liberal Democrats might support my hon. Friend’s Bill.
	Let me raise just one more issue to do with health. Last winter, A and Es around the country received extra money to cope with the winter pressures: some £250 million was made available. Hull did not get any of that money, but the CQC report to which I have referred made it quite clear that the inspectors felt that A and E needed extra assistance and support. I say again, as I have on many occasions, that Hull often seems to miss out on moneys that are very much needed in a city that has considerable health inequalities and where people develop chronic illnesses much younger than they do in other parts of the country.
	The NHS is a key issue for many of my constituents. I will be out and about over the summer listening to their concerns about the NHS and about what is going on locally. I am seriously worried by what has happened over the past two years. I remember very clearly the Prime Minister saying in 2010 that the NHS was safe in his hands. Four years on, I do not particularly think that he has kept that promise, and I think that over the coming 12 months we will start to see more and more issues raised about the state of the NHS.
	I finish by taking this opportunity to wish everybody a good recess, particularly the staff of the House, who serve us so well.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I add my support for the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who raised the issue of the plane being shot down over Ukraine and the problems that has caused, with all those people, from the Netherlands in particular but also from this country, being killed. We
	must send a message that that must not happen again and we must do much more about it, so I endorse his comments.
	I want to refer first to the A303/A30. As we leave here for our recess, many people from all over the country will be moving down to the west country for the holidays. If they come from Birmingham, they will come down the M5 all the way to Exeter and will then get on the A30 down into Devon and Cornwall. That is great, but then we have all the traffic that comes from London. We want to see as many visitors as possible, because as my suntan shows—it has all come from Devon, not from foreign parts—we have wonderful weather. Everybody is most welcome. However, as visitors come from London, they come down the M4 and must also join the M5, so when the Birmingham traffic meets the London traffic there is absolute chaos. As you represent one of the Bristol seats, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that.
	I am delighted that we will have a statement in the autumn, all being well, from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury giving money towards dualling the A303/A30, because it is essential that we have a second route in the west country. The traffic from London would then go down the M3, pick up the A303 and go on into Devon and Cornwall through Somerset and Wiltshire, and we would split the traffic between the midlands and London. At the moment, when the M5 or M4 is blocked, there is absolute chaos and hours and hours of traffic jam. The whole length of the A303/A30 needs to be dualled. There are five sections that need doing. The first is in Wiltshire at Stonehenge. It is extremely expensive because the powers that be seem to believe that we need a tunnel. I will not comment on the merits of that one way or the other, but it is expensive. The end that I represent, going into the Blackdown hills, is also expensive. I do not want to see the Government go shooting down the A303 and then shoot off on the A358 up to Taunton, because that road should be complementary. I am happy to have the A358 dualled, but we need the A303/A30 dualled all the way into Honiton to provide that second arterial route into the west country. Otherwise, if people join at Taunton, everything will be mixed back up on to the M5 and there will be complete chaos. That is why it is essential to dual the A303/A30. We can find a way to dual the route through the Blackdown hills without damaging the environment; we just have to be imaginative and make sure that we do it.
	I welcomed the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), to my constituency. He drove the route with me to see where the problems are, and I look forward to the Government doing something about it in the very near future.
	As we move into the 21st century, the one thing that matters to most, if not all, our constituents is access to fast broadband. Some of my constituents cannot even get snail’s pace broadband, let alone anything that is fast. There are huge problems even now in getting broadband into the Blackdown hills area, and places such as Upottery. I have an awful lot of farmers in my constituency who want to claim their single farm payments online. It is almost impossible to get access in some areas, so we really need to do something about it. I welcome
	what the Government have done already. Devon and Somerset county councils, along with BT, have put more than £100 million into delivering broadband, and Government money has been put in too. We have to make sure that it happens.
	We have had a problem in the past—I think it is getting better—in that BT seemed a little secretive about where it was going next. It is all very well to be secretive about these matters, but of course people on the ground see the BT vans turn up and have a rough idea who is going to be connected and who is not, even if it does not appear on a BT map. That is where I hope that we are learning the lessons. I look forward to having broadband throughout the constituency. Unfortunately, a lot of spots are hard to reach. We are raising money in Devon and Somerset to deal with that, but Government money is necessary. It could be done by BT, or perhaps there could be some competition from other companies to deliver broadband to the hardest-to-reach areas. A little more competition might be a good thing. I have worked with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), on broadband.
	My constituency also has a lot of beef cattle and a lot of sheep. Recently we have seen the price of beef drop significantly, as has the price that farmers receive from cattle. One of the most worrying things is that a year ago 57% of the value of a beef animal went directly to the farmer, whereas now it is 53%. The processors, retailers or whoever are taking too much money out of the market. It is expensive to raise beef cattle, and not only are the cattle very good to eat but they look after the wonderful countryside that everyone is going to drive down the A303 to see. We look forward to people eating those animals when they get there, but we need to make sure that farmers get a decent price for them so that they can carry on producing this excellent meat.
	When you come to Devon, you can also have some great lamb, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is what you like to eat. I am not sure whether you do, but if you do you are most welcome to come to Devon and eat some of it. Again, it is a case of making sure that the farmers who produce that food get a fair market price because they are the ones who look after the countryside.
	I have been delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be able to speak in this pre-recess debate. I look forward to coming back in September. In the meantime, I say to you, the Speaker’s Office and all the staff of Parliament, thank you very much for looking after us so well, and we look forward to returning in the future.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to speak in the pre-recess Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) is not here at the moment, but he did his introduction. I always look forward to his introductions, because they are always full of fun and he refers to many things. But there is one thing that he referred to that I did not agree with: not attending premier league football matches. I am a Leicester City football supporter—as I have been for 45 years, just to put it on the record as other Members have done—and we are back in the premier league for the first time in 10 years, so we are very pleased. I would urge everyone to go and support Leicester City whenever the opportunity comes.
	I should like to raise an issue that is close to my heart, one that I feel is extremely important in England, Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland. That is the role that the loyal Orange Order plays in our society. Throughout the years, especially in the summer months, we commemorate the brave actions of William III, Prince of Orange, and we celebrate the actions of 1690, which secured religious freedom and toleration for everyone. It is always good to remember that it is toleration and religious liberty for everyone. The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternity, with members throughout the world. Grand lodges are to be found in Ireland, in Scotland, in England, the United States of America, Canada, new Zealand and Australia, and in many countries across the African continent. Therefore you would not be surprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that as a member of the Orange Order, I feel a great sense of pride and camaraderie with my brothers and sisters in lodges throughout the world.
	The Orange Order is an integral part of the community, raising money for many local charities, as well as helping to raise funds for those in developing countries and supporting disadvantaged children in local areas. One example of such charitable work was the work centred on a district lodge in Randalstown that produced badges to raise over £16,000 for the Royal Ulster Constabulary/Police Service of Northern Ireland Benevolent Fund and the Royal Engineers Benevolent Fund. Those charities were chosen because of the brutal murders of two soldiers in Antrim and, earlier in the year, PSNI Constable Stephen Carroll by dissident republicans in 2009. As well as the established Grand Master’s Charity Appeal, the Lord Enniskillen Memorial Orange Orphan Society is an institution that has a magnificent record for helping boys and girls who have been deprived of the love and the contribution of a parent, either through death by natural causes or as a result of continuing violence in Northern Ireland.
	Parades are a key factor in the Orange Order celebrations, as people will know, the biggest of which takes place on the twelfth of July each year. This year we had no bother whatsoever. Indeed, many people said to me, “It was that good this year, I wish every day was the twelfth of July.” That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it is always good to have a parade that goes off without any bother, and it is always good to have an opportunity to enjoy the celebration of that occasion.
	The parading tradition that the Orange Order upholds is an honourable and historic tradition, which was the norm for other fraternities in the past. The parades of the Orange Order are the largest public Protestant witness of their kind anywhere in the world. In Northern Ireland we are very pleased to know that they are attended by people from both sides of the community, who enjoy the pageantry of the occasion. The parades are a glorious display of pageantry. The flags and banners are full of religious, cultural and political symbolism, depicting biblical scenes, famous people or events in history, and in themselves portray the rich cultural heritage of our people in pictorial form. The music provided by the accompanying bands is of a very high standard and in rural areas especially people will come across an instrument that in many people’s minds is synonymous with Orangeism—the Lambeg drum.
	I remember that 10 or 12 years ago, when a group of young people came from Germany to meet some of our young people in the Ards peninsula, the thing that those German young people enjoyed most of all about the twelfth was the Lambeg drums. It was good to know that they have that attraction in other parts of the world.
	Of course, parading is loved throughout the world, as we all know, from the fantastic carnivals of Rio or the mardi gras in New Orleans to the St Patrick’s day parades in New York and Dublin. There is a great tradition of parading in other cultures and for other celebrations as well. Those are fantastic celebrations in their own right, but to me, nothing can quite compare to the sheer thrill of marching on the twelfth of July, seeing the delight in spectators’ faces and the various colours that an Orange parade bears, be it in the various collarette colours or in the vibrant images on the banners. My own lodge is LOL 1900, “Kircubbin True Blues”, so it will be no surprise to learn that our collarettes are blue.
	This year in Northern Ireland, we witnessed a very peaceful twelfth of July. Unfortunately, due to some ludicrous decisions by the Parades Commission, many lodges were prevented from returning home via the straightforward route. Under the leadership of the Orange Order, a six-minute protest was held, with demonstrations across Northern Ireland. Every lodge and the accompanying bands stopped marching, silenced their instruments and stood in solidarity to represent the six minutes it would take for the lodges to pass the so-called contentious area and return home. The issue is one that greatly concerns us all across Northern Ireland. I congratulate the order on that response, because it was undoubtedly its careful and responsible leadership that led to such a glorious and peaceful twelfth.
	The Orange Order represents an important part of our community, but it means even more than that, particularly this year. The Orange Order represents Unionism, so it was extremely poignant to see the many lodges and bands that came to Northern Ireland from Scotland. I have kept up to date with the latest statistics and national opinion polls, so I am under no illusion that Scotland will opt to leave the Union rather than stay within it, but the very fact that the question has arisen is sad for Unionism. Each time I stand in Westminster, I love to see the four national emblems and four flags of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England, and know that this is where they all merge to form one flag and one identity: that of being British. This is where our strength lies and this is where we need to remain.
	It should be remembered that the order has a worldwide membership. The structure that is Orangeism has its basis in the coming together of men and women of good will who are determined to use what power and influence they can muster to ensure that civil and religious liberty is maintained. Members of the Orange Institution are pledged to uphold the Protestant faith and liberty under the law. Orangemen are neither bigots nor extremists, standing for tolerance and compassion towards all; they also stand for the underlying principle of the Christian faith and the dignity and rights of the individual.
	The Orange Order represents civil and religious liberty as it always has done, but today it means much more than that: it stands for unity and Unionism at its deepest level. It allows those of us in Northern Ireland
	who want to celebrate our British heritage and culture to do so and to enjoy the fact that we represent an essential part of the United Kingdom. We are proud to be part of the United Kingdom—I emphasise the word “United”—and hope to remain so for a long time. To sum up, the Orange Order is a fantastic organisation. It promotes Christian values, friendship and unity. Orangemen share common interests, beliefs and goals, which tie all of us together. It is a bond of the deepest kind.
	Perhaps not all Members are aware, but love is in the air in the House of Commons: this week, three MPs are getting married. The hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) is getting married in the morning of 25 July, and in the afternoon something more stupendous is happening, as the hon. Members for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) are marrying each other. It would be remiss of us not to add our congratulations to all three of them as they enter into the honourable institution of marriage. With that in mind, we wish them a happy marriage, good health and long life.
	Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you, the other Deputy Speakers and the Speaker, and your staff, for all your graciousness and good humour and for the fair way you conduct the business of the House. It is greatly appreciated by us all, and even more appreciated by me. Thank you very much.

Bob Stewart: I would like to follow almost exactly the same theme as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who made an extremely thoughtful speech. We must not underestimate the seriousness of the current international situation. Never in my life have I seen the world in a greater mess, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Libya and central Africa, and we must also remember the problems in North and South Korea, and those are only some examples.
	While we in the west are decreasing our defence spending, Russia is rapidly expanding its own. In 2013 it spent more on armaments than the United States. Russian defence spending increased by 4.8%. Under Russia’s state armaments plan, Moscow plans to spend $705 billion to replace 70% of the country’s military equipment by 2020. Some 45% of its ships will be new by next year. However, in the west, and particularly in Europe, defence is seen as a low priority. Spending on social security dominates and military security, which is the first duty of government, takes a back seat. Are we sleepwalking? The west won the cold war, but right now it does not look like we are winning the post-cold war.
	We, the British, are strong supporters of NATO, yet we are still prevaricating about spending a definite 2% of GNP on defence, which is an alliance commitment. Even that is not enough; we should be increasing defence spending well beyond that. For instance, how are we going to man, equip, fly from, sustain and protect two massive aircraft carriers currently being built in Scotland? Looking at the projected military budget for 2020, I simply cannot see how we can afford it. Where will the money come from? I cannot see how we can do it, based on current projections. We must increase our defence
	budget beyond 2%. Although I understand and support the need for some targeted overseas aid, I am none the less surprised that we spend one third of the defence budget on such aid each year.
	Defence is much too serious a matter to be fiddled, but NATO members, particularly in Europe, do so year in, year out. They certainly do not pay their NATO club dues. Surely what is happening in Ukraine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell pointed out, is a serious wake-up call. A French defence strategist recently described NATO as
	“an alliance of the unable and unwilling” .
	I am not sure that he was wrong.
	The situation in Ukraine is a total disaster, and tragically it is one that we seem unable to affect. Politically, as my hon. Friend suggested, we will huff and puff internationally, particularly in the United Nations, but probably with little effect. Economically, some states might tighten sanctions on Russia, but they are severely constrained by their interdependence with Russia. Militarily, the Foreign Secretary has already ruled out armed action, but surely there are some measures we might contemplate. Let me suggest two of them.
	First, would it be a total flight of fancy or madness for a UN force of some sort to have flown into Ukraine, at that state’s request, to secure the crash site of flight MH17? Of course there would be huge Russian protests, but at least that would have shown that we are very angry about what has happened and that we mean business. It is just a thought, but perhaps it is not as crazy as it might seem at first sight.
	Secondly, perhaps a more acceptable option would be to position NATO troops permanently, or in rotation, in eastern Latvia, eastern Estonia and eastern Poland. I think that should definitely be on the agenda of the forthcoming NATO summit. Again, Russia would denounce such a move, but so what? President Putin has asked for it by his actions. He would protest long and hard, but at least it would prove that NATO was not a paper tiger, as some think, and that it has teeth.
	I wish everyone in the House a really good recess, particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have been so nice to me, and even called me to speak occasionally. I thank everyone in the House, particularly my colleagues, who have been good friends. I thank the Clerks of the House, the ladies in the Tea Room and, in particular, the staff in the Strangers Bar.

John McDonnell: I apologise, because I want to raise six issues, but I will take only a couple of sentences on each one.
	It will be world hepatitis day on 28 July. The Hepatitis C Trust briefed Members two weeks ago about the number of hepatitis C sufferers in this country. There are now 250,000 in the UK and most remain undiagnosed. New treatments are able to cure 95%, but awareness and testing are extremely low, so only 3% of sufferers receive treatment every year. I want to put that on record and urge the Government to increase the awareness of hepatitis C in our country and to prioritise diagnosis and treatment.
	I want to raise three issues with regard to the fire service. In the Christmas recess debate I raised the ongoing dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and
	the Government on pension age and pension protection, and I wish to do so again because the dispute has not been resolved. The Northern Ireland Administration and the Scottish Government have agreed with the FBU that a retirement age of 60 is too old for the physical demands of the firefighting job. They have also agreed on a retirement age of 55 with no financial penalty, but the UK Government will still not budge. I urge the new fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), to break the deadlock and enter into meaningful negotiations. I hope she will agree to meet the FBU parliamentary group to discuss the matter. We are willing to meet at any stage during the recess, if it will help to resolve the dispute.
	Another issue is the ongoing discussions about the unresolved pension arrangements for defence fire service and rescue firefighters. In 2015, these firefighters will contribute 12.55% to their pension, which is the highest contribution in the fire service across the country. They will pay more than any other firefighters, but they will receive yet fewer benefits. They have still not had a decision from Government about their pension age. I, along with a number of colleagues, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who has just left his place, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), wrote to the fire Minister last week, urging her to resolve the matter. We thought it would be resolved months ago, but it has not. I urge the Government to look at the matter, because these firefighters consider their pension to be insecure and require a decision from the Government.
	Thirdly, I want to draw the attention of the House—this is a cross-party issue—to the Mayor of London’s attempt to change the representation on the London fire authority. He is promoting a statutory instrument that will enable the replacement of London assembly and borough representatives on the fire authority with his own appointees. It will cut the Labour representation in half and remove all Lib Dem and Green representation. I urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to refuse to agree to the introduction of the statutory instrument, but if it is introduced I urge Members to vote against it on a cross-party basis.
	May I tread into Northern Ireland again and talk about welfare reform there? The Government are seeking to impose their welfare reform legislation on the people of Northern Ireland, including the bedroom tax, the harsh benefit sanctions, the disaster of universal credit and work capability assessments, with all their adverse consequences. Sinn Fein has looked at the hardship that such measures have caused in England and Wales and has met several representatives in this country, Wales and Scotland, and it is concerned about what has happened here, especially to the most vulnerable—children and people with disabilities. It has been agreed that those welfare reform proposals are not appropriate for Northern Ireland and not supported by the people, and that they should therefore not be implemented.
	The Government’s response has been to impose a £13 million fine on the Northern Ireland Administration for 2014, which will rise to £87 million in 2014-15 and to £114 million in 2015-16. That was contained in a letter I was copied into from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is somewhat bizarre, because at the same time he sent the letter, he was saying publicly that he would vote to
	scrap the bedroom tax after the next election—somewhat contradictory, but I suppose unsurprising of the man. I urge the Government to think again. The proposals threaten not just to impose a significantly harsh welfare regime on the people of Northern Ireland, but to undermine the whole concept of devolved government.
	I want to turn to Hillingdon council, which I raised in the last pre-recess Adjournment debate. Again, I desperately urge the Government to launch an independent public inquiry into the administration of Hillingdon council. Eighteen months ago, I brought to the House for debate Transparency International’s report on the potential risk of corruption and maladministration in local government in this country. Transparency International is the organisation that specialises in preparing reports on openness and transparency in Governments overall, and in calculating levels of corruption across the world to produce a league table of states.
	Transparency International looked at the changes in local government administration and decision making in this country in recent years—under the previous Government and under this one—and it expressed concerns about the risk of corruption and maladministration in local government in this country. I believe that Hillingdon council is a prime example of what Transparency International was talking about. In Hillingdon, we now live under an elective dictatorship. It is a prime example of the lack of openness and transparency in decision making.
	I believe that the use of the argument that commercial confidentiality prevents open discussion of decisions and issues before the council is used to cover up incompetence and maybe worse. I would just give the example of this week’s cabinet committee papers. On 25 July, the cabinet will meet, but of the 12 items with reports on the agenda, seven are marked as restricted and will not be publicly published. Not only are the general public denied any access to those reports, but any opposition councillor who in any way informs the public about any items in those reports will be threatened with criminal action. I believe that that is unacceptable: it is actually undermining local democracy within my area.
	I have raised that matter on several occasions. On one of them, I used the example of Triscott House, which is a residential home for elderly people. When it was renovated, there was a delay of 18 months as that dragged on, and ladies in their 80s—one was in her 90s—lived out of packing cases while waiting to be rehoused back into Triscott House. I demonstrated that that was because the council had fallen out with a contractor, and I exposed on the Floor on the House that it had laundered money to pay the contractor through another contract. I now find from a cabinet report that the council is now at risk of incurring a £1 million payment to the contractor as a result of the settlement of the dispute. That all arose from the fact that the leader’s decision was not reported publicly at all, which is a disgrace.
	I do not think that the Government can stand to one side when such practices are undermining confidence in local government and democracy overall. I therefore again urge them to establish a full independent public inquiry to reassure my constituents that local democracy can be restored to my community.

Andrew Stephenson: I would like to take this opportunity to talk about jobs and skills in Pendle. I will talk about the progress that has been made and the challenges that we still face.
	Pendle’s local economy relies heavily on manufacturing and that sector has had a rough few years. Some 1.8 million manufacturing jobs were lost under the last Government and by August 2009, 2,239 people in Pendle were claiming jobseeker’s allowance. Our local schools were also near breaking point, with the lack of school places meaning that children were being taught in temporary classrooms in playgrounds, in converted attics and even in a basement at one school that I visited.
	We are making significant progress in tackling that. Thanks to the doubling of funding for new school places under this Government, the popular and heavily over-subscribed Laneshaw Bridge primary school became the first Pendle primary school to benefit from a new multimillion pound building, which increased the school’s capacity from 154 to 210 children. Plans were then drawn up for three more brand-new primary school buildings. The new £5-million Barnoldswick Church of England primary school, which has just been completed, the new £6.1 million St Paul’s Church of England primary school and the new £8 million Whitefield infant school in Nelson are all due to open in September this year. Those four new schools, along with the expansion of others, such as Reedley primary school, which I visited last week, and the £6.2 million investment at West Craven High technology college, represent a capital investment of more than £30 million in our local schools.
	Crucially, those new buildings are not being delivered through private finance initiative contracts, as were two of Pendle’s secondary schools under the Building Schools for the Future programme. The new schools have been fully paid for and will not saddle taxpayers will large bills from private companies for decades to come.
	There is also a £3.6 million investment in the outstanding Nelson and Colne college, which the former skills Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), visited in May. Nelson and Colne college has been pivotal in delivering the Government’s ambition of a record number of apprenticeships. In 2009-10, 470 people started an apprenticeship in Pendle. By 2012-13, the figure had increased to 1,150. That is an increase of 145%, which is hugely welcome to young people in my area, especially the 3,600 of them who have started an apprenticeship in Pendle since the Government came to office.
	In March, we saw the official opening of East Lancashire’s university technical college in Burnley by His Royal Highness the Duke of York. The new £10 million Visions Learning Trust UTC will provide young people with vital engineering and construction skills. It is supported by large Pendle employers including Rolls-Royce, Weston EU, Graham Engineering, Fort Vale Engineering and Barnfield Construction.
	Added together, those investments represent a real boost to education and skills in Pendle and are ensuring that our young people have the skills that our local employers need. They have also undoubtedly helped towards the 41% reduction in youth unemployment that we have seen in Pendle since May 2010.
	Turning to the overall jobs situation, the number of Pendle residents in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance has fallen from a high of 2,239 in August 2009, which I mentioned earlier, to just 1,305 in June this year. That is a fall of 42%. That has come about not by accident, but thanks to the Government’s long-term economic plan and the steps that have been taken by our local authorities to support job creation in the area. For example, when one of Pendle’s largest employers, Silentnight, went into administration in 2011, there was concern over the future of its site in Barnoldswick. I visited it soon afterwards to discuss how the company could be supported to remain in Pendle. Very quickly, a package of support was put together by then Conservative-led Lancashire county council. That support meant that by March 2012, the company was not just staying in Barnoldswick, but was looking to create an additional 140 jobs. I was proud to take the Prime Minister to visit Silentnight in May to see a company that is going from strength to strength.
	The local jobs market has received a significant boost since July last year, when the Government agreed with the arguments that I and others were making and approved £5 million of additional business support via the regional growth fund to help local mid-sized manufacturers to expand. In the past 12 months, that money has been distributed by Regenerate Pennine Lancashire through the accelerating business growth grants to help 14 business across Pendle, including Optimill in Colne, Mackintosh in Nelson, ACDC in Barrowford, Standel Dawman in Nelson and Pendle Polymer. Between them, those businesses have benefited from almost £1 million in grants, creating well over 100 jobs and safeguarding many more. I am actively working with businesses such as Wellocks and New Call Telecom to support their major expansion plans that could create more than 200 jobs on the Lomeshaye industrial estate in Nelson.
	The recent announcement of assisted area status for Pendle is an important step forward for my constituency. The previous assisted area status map drawn up under the previous Government in 2007 included parts of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Burnley, but not a single part of Pendle. As part of the consultation on the new map, Pendle council and the Lancashire local enterprise partnership argued for four Pendle wards to be included, but I met Ministers and made the case not just for those four wards, but for going much further. I am delighted that in the end it was agreed that 13 Pendle wards should be included—more than half the borough—with assisted area status covering businesses stretching from Reedley and Brierfield through to Earby. The new map came into force on 1 July and will remain in force until 2020, which will deliver a long-term economic boost to my constituency. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) for his help in securing assisted area status for my constituency.
	Sadly, all is not well with Pendle’s largest employer, Rolls-Royce, which has sites at Bankfield and Ghyll Brow in Barnoldswick, and currently employs more than 1,000 people. Rolls-Royce has been a major employer in the town since acquiring those sites shortly after the second world war, but the numbers employed have fallen over the years. Most worryingly, under the last Government Rolls-Royce opened a new factory in Singapore
	to manufacture civil wide-chord fan blades—the same process currently undertaken in Barnoldswick—as the company opted to invest abroad rather than in the UK.
	In January the company contacted me to say that following a review it expected the loss of 27 jobs at its Barnoldswick sites. By March that figure had risen to 120, and last week we had confirmation that total proposed job losses would be 156. Consultation meetings have been ongoing since March and the company has been looking at mitigation options, including voluntary severance leavers, individuals taking roles elsewhere in the company, and the release of agency workers. Regrettably, however, those job losses will start soon and will be phased in between now and the end of the year.
	I appreciate that all companies need to keep their costs down and run as lean an operation as they can in today’s marketplace, but the number of job losses is deeply regrettable at a time when that flagship British company is growing and winning new orders across the globe. In addition to my regular meetings with Rolls-Royce, trade union representatives, and regular visits to the site since I was elected, I wrote to the chief executive, John Rishton, in June. In my letter I pointed out the potential for its sites in Barnoldswick to expand, the new University Technical College in Burnley where Rolls-Royce helps with the curriculum, and the new assisted area status that covers the site. In his reply, Mr Rishton said that he was appreciative of the support the aerospace sector is receiving from the Government and that the company was making investment in the Barnoldswick sites, but that the reduction in the work force was still necessary. I am sure he will realise that as Pendle’s MP, and as vice chairman of the all-party group for aerospace, I will continue to make the case for investment and job creation in Barnoldswick.
	Four years ago I delivered a maiden speech in the House in a debate about building a high-skilled economy. I mentioned manufacturing, skills, and the outstanding Nelson and Colne college. I am proud of what we have been able to achieve in Pendle since then, but there are many challenges still facing the area and our economic recovery is not guaranteed. I wish all right hon. and hon. Members an enjoyable recess, and particularly you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House.

Thomas Docherty: It is a pleasure to respond briefly to this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for initiating it. It seems to be a return to the traditions that we had until 2010-11, although we are using a slightly different format today. I do not intend to cover all the issues raised because I want to provide the Deputy Leader of the House the maximum opportunity to respond, but I thought that the speech by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) was one of the most thoughtful and powerful that I have heard this year. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take the opportunity to provide a substantive reply to him on the possibilities for recall during the summer recess if the situation overseas deteriorates.
	I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in wishing hon. Members who are getting married this week all the best. I am sure the whole House wishes them all the best for their futures.
	A number of hon. Members have taken the opportunity to thank the staff of the House. On behalf of the Opposition, I join in thanking them, in particular Sam, Elaine, Joanna and Russell, our hard-working and very talented civil servants in the Opposition Whips Office, whom I know will have a very good summer without Members getting in the way of running the business.
	A number of long-serving staff have retired or are in the process of doing so, including the Librarian, John Pullinger; Christine Gillie from the Library, who has provided many years of high-quality briefing on education; James Roberston, who started 20 years ago in the Serjeant at Arms Department, and who most recently served as director of accommodation and logistics services; Janet Rissen and Judith Welham, who have given excellent HR advice over many years; Amanda Waller, who has served a number of Committees and who has most recently served in support of our delegations to parliamentary assemblies; Chris Weeds, who has been engaged in providing education; and Clare Cowan, who started Parliament’s outreach efforts. We thank all those public servants, as well as many others whom I have been unable to mention and who are moving on this year, for all their efforts.
	Of course, one other retirement is taking place in just a few short weeks. Sir Robert Rogers is held in the highest regard by all Members and all members of the House of Commons service. It is worth noting briefly how much the House has changed in the 42 years since Sir Robert joined the House Service. The Clerk of the House at the time was Sir Barnett Cocks; the underground car park was a hugely controversial building project, opposed by many in the House Service and many Members of Parliament; and Parliament had not yet found additional office accommodation. The Norman Shaw buildings as we know them were yet to be acquired, and were described just a few years after Sir Robert arrived as the Savoy of office accommodation, which perhaps goes to show how much Parliament has changed during Sir Robert’s time.
	I am sure I speak for all Members when I wish all staff members who will be returning—Hansard, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks and everyone else—a very enjoyable and peaceful summer.
	Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fair to say that you will be aware that not many Scottish Members of Parliament will be here during our September fortnight. Not only on behalf of the Scottish tourism industry, but on behalf of the referendum campaign, my hon. Friends and other Scottish MPs, I extend a very warm welcome to all Members of Parliament who wish to spend a bit of time this July and August, and indeed September, coming to Scotland, seeing the sights and knocking on those doors to keep the UK together.

Tom Brake: I have the rather daunting task of responding in the 30 minutes that remain to the 26 contributions we have heard this afternoon. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating the debate.
	As is customary, we first heard a contribution from the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who has just returned to his seat. He displayed a high level of optimism—perhaps his level of optimism was the same
	as that of many English people about our chances of success in the World cup. His optimism was for his chance of promotion in the reshuffle. I encourage him to maintain that level of optimism.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about working-class Conservatives. There was a bit of banter between those on the two sides of the House about who could claim the highest number of working-class antecedents. He touched on many other issues: his concerns about Barclays bank; the residential home and its lift service; the probation service and its payments; and the Royal Mail dog awareness campaign. I can confirm that I, too, participated in the campaign. I was able to confirm to Royal Mail that, like most Members of the House, I did indeed have my backside bitten by a dog on one occasion when out canvassing. I am not quite sure why the person I canvassed, having failed to open the door to me when I knocked on it, felt it was necessary, at the point when I was leaving her house and had just reached the gate, to let her dog out so that it could viciously attack me.
	My hon. Friend talked about Southend being the alternative city of culture, which I think is probably true. He talked also about diabetes treatment, an issue that comes up frequently in the House. He is right to highlight that. It is a very significant health issue with the potential to drain a very high level of resource from the NHS. He talked about mental health. He is right that in the past it has perhaps been the Cinderella health service, but the Government have tried, through parity of esteem and additional funding, to recognise mental health as something to which we need to give greater priority. He also talked about the importance of dealing with arthritis.
	My hon. Friend talked about the concept of a national cemetery. I am afraid that I cannot give him any comfort on that. I have tried to identify which Department would like to take responsibility, but at the moment it is proving somewhat difficult to identify the lead Government Department. He bemoaned the fact that Southend did not have as many centenarians, but said that he was working to boost their numbers. Finally, he talked about the world record-breaking attempt that Rossi Ice Cream is going to conduct for the largest number of people licking an ice cream. It was not clear to me whether it was the same ice cream they would be licking, or whether they would each have a separate ice cream.
	We then moved on to the contribution from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). He is not in his place, but I would like to respond briefly to the points he made. He paraded his working-class origins, although he said that having served as long as he has in this House he probably cannot claim that any more. He talked about cycling, of which I am also a great supporter. He thought that we needed a cycling champion, but I think we have at least a couple in Chris Hoy and Sir Bradley Wiggins. He thinks that we perhaps need other cycling champions. He talked about Thames crossings and the need to provide additional access, which would be welcomed. One difficulty with additional access is whether it creates more traffic, but I am sure he is on top of that issue. He highlighted the importance of having a clean and fair general election in Tower Hamlets, on which I am sure that we all agree. Some of what
	happened there, including the logistics, in terms of the length of time taken to complete the election, was absolutely astounding.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about leasehold reform, and I suspect that all of us will have encountered leaseholders who are up against some real challenges. He also talked about the need to increase house building. Again, I think there is a cross-party consensus on that. He raised the issue of the telephone company Zamir. I will certainly make sure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is aware of the problems that company is having in its dealings with Bangladesh. He referred to Gaza, as did a number of other Members. I agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister said on this issue. First, we must condemn absolutely what Hamas is doing. Hamas needs to stop launching rockets at Israel. At the same time, Israel must stop the military strikes it is conducting on densely populated areas, because it is inevitable that they will lead to an unacceptable level of civilian casualties.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who is in his place, for his work in representing his constituents on housing and development. He highlighted the scale of the proposed developments in his constituency, and the contrasting views and demands in different parts of the country. Opposition Members have talked about the need to expand housing provision. He rightly wants to defend the interests of his constituents, who are concerned about the very high level of development they face. He also said it was important to consider the issue of VAT on housing renovation. That is an idea which, although not Government policy, I have some sympathy with as a means of bringing back into use houses that are in need of renovation.
	We then listened to the contribution from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who is no longer in his place, on the issue of Grangemouth. We have all followed that story, and I think we can all welcome the outcome, which has secured the jobs of many thousands of workers. He also highlighted his support for fracking and methane extraction, which given that our nation needs energy diversity, are potentially important sources of energy. He also referred to the extractive industries transparency initiative, which he has referred to in previous pre-recess Adjournment debates, highlighted something that I was not aware of and which other Members might not have known either: in some places in Nigeria, such as Rivers state, it is having a positive effect. As we all know, the presence of oil can often be a poison, rather than something that contributes positively to the development of a country, but at least in Rivers state it is making a contribution. He then tried to tempt me to get involved in Nigerian politics. For me, coalition politics is sufficient, without my getting involved in Nigerian politics.
	The hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) mentioned his support for complementary medicine. My friend Evan Harris—I wish he was still here—who has strong views on the subject, could have had a lively debate with him. The hon. Gentleman described the progress of a policy from being opposed to being fully adopted—from “mad and dangerous” to “can’t find anyone against it”—but then he talked about wearing four hats; I was worried he was still at the mad stage, as opposed to everyone agreeing with him. He also referred to astrology—it is probably best not to say any more about that, although he does not need to be an astrologer
	to know he will probably get some e-mails expressing frank views on astrology and its merits or otherwise. I agreed with his final point, however, about the need to make everyone in this country happier. I think we are trying to do that. I hope I am making all Members who contributed happy by responding to at least some of their points.
	The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), who unfortunately could not stay—she let me know beforehand—talked about the importance of integrating health and social care and rightly sang the praises of carers, as we all often do in this place. It gives me the opportunity to sing the praises of the Sutton carers centre in my borough, which does a good job of supporting carers. I hope that this Government, and previous Governments, have recognised the importance of carers and are putting measures in place to support them. The carer’s assessment is part of that, the existence of which she has successfully highlighted to try and ensure that more people access it. She asked why the NHS was not being made responsible for identifying carers. I think local authorities, too, have a clear public health role and responsibility to do the same.
	The hon. Lady also talked about the spare room subsidy. It is clear what the Liberal Democrats said on that issue. We support the principle of what the Government have done, but the Department for Work and Pensions has produced a report highlighting certain problems with the present scheme, and of course we will work within the coalition to get our Conservative partners to accept that action needs to be taken as a result of that report. If that is not possible, we will return to the issue in our manifesto at the general election.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned air pollution. The Government are committed to working towards full compliance with current EU air quality standards. In recent decades, there have been considerable improvements in air quality, but we are not complacent. As a London MP, I am aware that the air quality issues there are a serious issue that we need to address.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) referred to the 40th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, whose importance I think we all recognise. Since its introduction, the number of employees killed at work has fallen by 85%. That is a substantial drop, although there is clearly more to be done. My hon. Friend pointed out that there had not been a single loss of life during the Olympic games, which I think is a real tribute to the safety standards that were adopted. As he said, it is a great pity that other countries—including Qatar and, indeed, Brazil—have not managed to achieve the same result.
	Like my hon. Friend, I should be worried if anything were happening that would reduce the health and safety of workers, but certainly nothing that the Government are doing would have that effect. He referred to appendix 4. I am afraid that I do not know the details of appendix 4, but I will ensure that he receives a reply, because I know that the issue is of interest not only to him, but to other Members of Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is not in the Chamber—talked about sporting bodies and the importance of looking seriously at the health impact of playing football. A range of football-related issues arise in the House regularly. During business questions, we have frequently encouraged Members to
	apply to the Backbench Business Committee, because it is clear that there are enough sport-related concerns to justify a wider debate on the issue.
	I certainly agree with one of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I was shocked to see the German and Argentine players stumbling around on the sidelines and then going back on to the pitch. I cannot understand why they were allowed to do that. My son plays football, and I know what happens at junior level. All the advice is that someone who is thought to have concussion should be taken off the pitch, and medical help should be sought. That person should not be sent back on to the pitch.
	On Russia, which was raised by a number of Members, the hon. Gentleman underlined the importance of standing together and trying to persuade France and Germany to work on the issue. I hope that that will be possible, notwithstanding the business interests that those two countries have in relation to Russia.
	The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is present, mentioned an e-petition, and drew attention to the success of e-petitions generally and what it could lead to in terms of parliamentary debates. I am very pleased about the debate that took place as a result of that e-petition. He then referred to the issue of caste, which is clearly controversial. Some believe that it is an issue even in the United Kingdom, in the context of people’s ability to obtain jobs in, for instance, the national health service. That has been raised with me in the past. I think we shall have to agree that there may be differing views on caste.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke about Gaza, about a number of free schools in his constituency—it is clear that a great deal is happening to education there, and that he is very proud of it—and about the fact that managing the steps from the platform to street level at Stanmore station requires one to be an Olympic athlete. I shall ensure that the Mayor is aware of that, as it is a Transport for London issue. He mentioned Anmer Lodge and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, as he had done during our Easter Adjournment debates. He is clearly as determined to ensure that his local hospital is rebuilt as I am to ensure that St Helier hospital is rebuilt, and I have no doubt that both of us will continue to campaign on those issues.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to Barnet football club, Tesco, the NatWest closure, and the “hated no right turn”, of which none of the rest of us were aware, apart from the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas)—who, I understand, is training for the London triathlon. My tip is that if he has not done his swimming training yet, he will have a real struggle. It is not really possible to engage in the other two events without the swimming: I know that. I wish the hon. Gentleman good luck.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue to do with football. That again suggests there is potential for the Backbench Business Committee to deliver a comprehensive debate on football matters, if Members approach it. He asked if I could secure for him a letter from the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Harrow council funding issue, and I will endeavour to do that and to flag that up to them. He also raised concerns about pensions and reforms to the pensions system. I hope he agrees that some of the changes the Government made are positive, but he highlighted some specific issues about pension funds and the need for greater
	accountability and accessibility, and I hope some of them will follow in the footsteps of the Legal & General, which he highlighted as having taken positive action in this respect and which has, perhaps, set an example for others.
	We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is in his place. I commend him on his campaigning on Cossham hospital, and, indeed, his mother on the work she used to do—or may still do—as a nurse. I also have some advice for him in relation to antenatal classes, particularly if he is attending the birth: the second one is easier, but he may find that he faints in the first one. I just give him that word of warning. He made a very strong case for the maintenance of services at his hospital and I hope his campaign is successful.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) talked about the need for best practice guidance in relation to consultations, and she asked whether I will introduce that. I can confirm to her that it has already been introduced, so I have already delivered that, but it was in November last year. There are best practice guidelines for consultations, therefore, although I must confess I am not sure whether there is the level of detail that would confirm whether a non-response should or should not be counted, so she may want to look at that and see whether it is the case.
	The hon. Lady also raised concerns about her GP surgery and the legislation we have just passed, and I think she suggested that the Government want to know absolutely everything about their citizens. That is certainly not what the data retention proposals are about. She highlighted that in her view the reshuffle the Government —or the Conservatives—have just undertaken is actually about creating more opportunities for Mr Speaker to impersonate leading Ministers. He has not heard that, but he may be practising once he has read Hansard later.
	The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) highlighted his volunteering work, as he has done in the past, and I commend him on that—he is not in the Chamber, but I commend him none the less. He also highlighted planning issues, which is one of those difficult areas for Members of Parliament where on the one hand we need to represent constituents who might have children still living at home who cannot afford to move out, while on the other hand we have constituents who do not want to see developments in their backyard. He highlighted the importance of developing brownfield sites, too, which the Government clearly support, and bringing flats above shops into use.
	The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) rightly highlighted the importance of speaking out for adults with autism who are not in a position to do that themselves and concerns he had that they may drop below the radar—I think that was the phrase he used—and that, although the banding proposals may ensure there is no longer a postcode lottery in the provision of care, he believes it may in fact mean some people will drop out of receiving the support they need.
	The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who is in his place, referred to Mr Rockhill, who got a formal caution for displaying an A-board. Like him, I would have hoped the local authority could have demonstrated a degree of common sense in its approach.
	He also referred to a constituent who should not be spreading his net in the bay, and again I think a modicum of common sense might have resolved that, but he might also like to know of a case involving a county council that asked a local borough council to take down the knitted bicycle bunting erected for the Tour de France because of the damage it might have caused to the heritage lampposts.
	That is another example of people perhaps being a little over-zealous in their application of the rules and regulations.
	The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) referred to the need to build more housing. As I said, there is a cross-party consensus on that; there may not be a similar consensus on where the houses should be built, though the need for them is clearly demonstrated. I believe she said her local authority is building council homes, and I am pleased to say that my local Sutton council is doing the same thing and has set up its own company for that purpose. She highlighted the need to encourage responsible private landlords to offer longer tenancies. We have all had constituents in our surgeries who dealt with someone who may potentially be a good private landlord but who had provided them with only a year’s tenancy, and I think we would all want to see that addressed.
	The hon. Lady referred to her concerns about the withdrawal of the minimum practice income guarantee and how it may lead to a transfer of funding from poor areas to richer areas. I do not know whether she is right about the impact in my constituency, but she asked whether I could secure a response from the Department of Health and I will do that for her. She also referred to broadband and I will pick that matter up shortly. She rightly reminded everyone that it is 100 days since the schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram and almost no action seems to have been taken—that is very depressing. Like others, I experience a degree of bafflement about the lack of any concrete action in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), who is in his place, talked about the need for a new junction on the M4. I know that has been considered, but I am afraid it is not in the current programme. He rightly highlighted the very good work done by the Great Western Air Ambulance and the support it provides to 2 million people, and his desire to see it funded from the LIBOR fund. He also talked about residents user groups, and his constituent Bob Woodward OBE and the work he has done in raising huge amounts of money for CLIC.
	I will ensure that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) also receives the response that will go to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch about the minimum practice income guarantee. He talked about the work he is doing with Muslim communities, and I agree that we need to ensure they do not feel under attack because of the conflagration of different things that they might feel is targeted at them. We should all be very careful about the language we use in that respect.
	As other hon. Members have said, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made a very thoughtful and hard-hitting statement. I guess the issue is: what can we do in concrete terms about Russia? Are some of the options that were put forward viable or would they inflame the situation further? That is the challenge to
	which the Government have to respond. Clearly, there is the possibility of a recall if that is necessary—if things develop—but we did have the Prime Minister’s statement on the issue.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is also in her place, had concerns about the NHS. I agree that the NHS faces challenges, but there are a range of measures, be it on hospital-acquired infections, mixed-sex wards, or the record lows for the 18, 26 and 52-week treatment targets, where things are more positive. I am of course very sorry to hear about the poor care her constituent received, although from what she was describing I think it was not a resources issue; it was more of a communication issue, potentially within the hospital and upon release of the patient.
	The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who was not able to stay, referred to the A303. All Members who have been on holiday in that area probably want to see action taken, and we await the autumn statement later this year, which we hope will be positive on that. He also raised the issue of broadband. We have invested heavily in broadband—£790 million—but I agree that, in certain parts of the country, it has not yet delivered the goods that people want to see.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the Orange Order, and its motto “Toleration for everyone”. Clearly, that is particularly essential in a Northern Ireland context, and is something that we all want to support. We support too the charity work that it is undertaking.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—

Bob Stewart: I am here!

Tom Brake: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government—or the international community—are failing in relation to Russia. I hope that it is possible to bring together the different players to ensure that action is taken, but we will have to wait and see what happens.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a number of issues. I will, if I may, highlight world hepatitis day to which he wanted to draw attention. He also talked about hepatitis C, and the need for greater diagnosis and publicity. He is also a doughty campaigner on behalf of the fire service, and he raised a number of issues in that regard, as he does on a regular basis in pre-recess Adjournment debates and at other opportunities. He referred again to Hillingdon council. He is clearly an assiduous campaigner and will not let the council off the hook if he thinks that it is up to no good.
	The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is in his place, talked about the important investment in schools and businesses in his constituency. Quite rightly, he highlighted the fact that, unfortunately, Rolls-Royce is having to retrench in his constituency, but I am sure that he will work with other community representatives to campaign on behalf of the aerospace industry to ensure that Pendle recovers from the loss. I commend him on the first and, I think, only use of the “long-term economic plan” phrase, which gives me an opportunity to say that the Government are building a stronger economy and a fairer society.
	Finally, I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to long-serving members of staff—John Pullinger, Christine
	Gillie, James Robertson, Janet Rissen, Judith Welham, Amanda Waller, Chris Weeds and Clare Cowan—for all their efforts in the House in recent years.

Thomas Docherty: It was remiss of me not to mention this before. I mentioned Sir Barnett Cox, who was the Clerk when Sir Robert first arrived. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of this, but after Sir Barnett retired he published a book about Parliament. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea if the Clerk, in his newly acquired time, was able to bring out a publication on how Parliament works, and after that, perhaps one on cricket as well?

Tom Brake: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sir Robert may have heard his entreaty to produce such things, but I will also use this as an opportunity to thank Sir Robert on behalf of all Members. Members should consider the range of things in which Sir Robert has been involved. Let me name just a few. He was involved in implementing the Modernisation Committee’s reform of the legislative process; writing the “Shifting the Balance” report of the Liaison Committee, which was a major step in Select Committee innovation before the Wright Committee; proposing the idea that the Prime Minister should appear before the Liaison Committee; and writing the so-called 75-point plan in the options for Commons reform, which are gradually being worked through. On the more administrative side, he began to grapple with some of the biggest challenges that we face, such as the need to invest substantially in ensuring that this building is fit for purpose for members of staff, Members and peers in decades to come. Sir Robert will be sorely missed by all Members of the House, and I have personally enjoyed his friendly, informative and experienced advice in the years that I have been here.
	With that, I will finish by thanking all of the staff—the police, the Clerks, the Chief Clerk, Sir Robert, staff in the Tea Room and everyone who supports us to enable us to do the job that we do. Without them it would not be possible, and we would not get the enjoyment out of it that we do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

PETITIONS

Deaths and injuries in Lahore

Andrew Stephenson: I would like to present a petition from a large number of my constituents about an incident that happened in Lahore. I have already raised the matter with the acting high commissioner for Pakistan.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the Pendle,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the killing of eleven and injury of over eighty more civilians in Lahore at the Minhaj-ul-Quran Complex on 17th June 2014 was an act of terrorism carried out by the Government of Pakistan and federal Government
	of Punjab and further that a local Petition from residents of Nelson has received over 2000 signatures.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Government of Pakistan and federal Government of Punjab to bring the perpetrators of the violence to account and refer the incident to the International Criminal Court.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001382]

Dangerous dogs

Peter Aldous: I am here to present this petition on behalf of my constituent Mrs Paula Trail. In January, Mrs Trail was walking her King Charles spaniel Lacie, who was attacked and tragically killed by two other dogs. Since then, more than 400 people have signed a local petition and more than 1,750 an e-petition calling for penalties to be imposed if a dog is dangerously out of control and injures another dog.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduces legislation so that penalties can also be imposed on owners if their dog injures another dog.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners welcome the changes that the Government have made to its guidance on “controlling your dog in public” as it is now against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control in private places such as your own home and a neighbour’s garden; further that the Petitioners believe that, although improved, the updated guidance does not go far enough as penalties are only imposed on owners if their dog injures a person or a guide dog; and further that a local petition on this matter has received over 400 signatures and an e-petition over 1,750.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduces legislation so that penalties can also be imposed on owners if their dog injures another dog.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001377]

Home-to-school transport to the Colne Community School (Essex)

Bernard Jenkin: It is my duty and privilege to introduce a petition on behalf of those whose school transport is being adversely affected by changes in Essex county council policy. The petition contains no fewer than 527 signatures.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Harwich and North Essex,
	Declares that Essex County Council’s new home-to-school transport policy has removed school transport funding for residents of Wivenhoe with children attending the Colne Community School in Brightlingsea; further that the Petitioners believe that the policy does not recognise the long-term close community link between Wivenhoe and the Colne Community School; further that the cost of running an underutilised service to the allocated catchment school would better be spent on transport to the Colne
	Community School; and further that the journey time to the Colne Community School is likely to be the same as, or shorter than, to the allocated catchment school.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Essex County Council to continue to provide residents of Wivenhoe with equitably funded home-to-school transport to the Colne Community School in Brightlingsea.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001378]

Direct bus service from Hounslow West to West Middlesex Hospital

Seema Malhotra: The petition concerns the provision of a direct bus route from Hounslow West to West Middlesex hospital. It has also been supported by residents in Cranford who are similarly affected. There is currently no direct bus services from these heavily populated wards to the main hospital serving Hounslow residents. Carers, the elderly, and disabled and unwell constituents in Feltham and Heston are forced to change bus services when making what can be a difficult journey to the hospital. The issue is particularly acute in poor weather and attempts to amend bus services to provide a direct service have so far been unsuccessful. There are seven signatures attached to this petition, representing seven of the 236 who have signed a similar petition directly to Transport for London.
	The petition states:
	“The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West… to West Middlesex Hospital is provided.”
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of Hounslow,
	Declares that the Petitioners strongly believe that there needs to be a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7; further that just over two years ago on 19 June 2012 the Petitioners wrote to the Operation Manager of Transport for London regarding the bus service and regret that the reply received from a Customer Service Adviser was not encouraging; further that the Petitioners provided four possible review options for one of the service routes which was turned down; further that in a reply on 11 July 2012 TfL noted that the entire bus network is reviewed on a regular basis to make sure that passengers are given the best possible service; further that the Petitioners replied to this letter of 11 July and are still awaiting a reply; and further that passengers travelling to West Middlesex Hospital have to change buses at Hounslow Bus Garage to visit admitted patients and attend appointments which the Petitioners believe can be particularly difficult for the elderly and disabled.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to liaise with the Mayor of London and Transport for London to ensure that a direct bus service from Hounslow West Tube Station, Bath Road, Hounslow TW4 to West Middlesex Hospital, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 is provided.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001379]

Human rights in Sri Lanka

Gareth Thomas: It is my duty and privilege to raise concerns put to me by Councillor Kareema Marikar and the trustees and elders of the Sri Lankan mosque in Harrow about human rights in Sri Lanka. The petition reads:
	The Petition of residents of Harrow West,
	Declares that it has been reported that violent attacks on Muslims in the southern Sri Lanka town of Aluthgama beginning on 15 June resulted in the death of four Muslims, and injured more than 80, with many homes and businesses destroyed; further that the Petitioners believe that it is of particular concern that eyewitnesses have reported that the police stood by and refused to intervene during the violence; and further that international human rights organisations have called on the Sri Lankan authorities to fully investigate the attacks and identify those who incited the violence.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes action to raise concerns regarding the violent attacks on Muslims with the Sri Lankan authorities.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001380]

Development proposals for 34 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough

Peter Bone: I present a petition, which has 800 names, on an important local issue. The three lead signatures are Ruth Claire Smith, Joanne Harrison and Ian Richards. The petition reads:
	To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
	The Humble Petition of residents of Hatton Park, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
	sheweth,
	That the Petitioners believe that the proposed change of use of 34 Hatton Avenue, Wellingborough into a behavioural management home (application number WP/14/00385/COU) is unacceptable as the location of the development is unsuitable both for the proposed residents of the home and for the local residents.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to reject the current application and relocate it to a more suitable site.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P001381]

HMRC (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Wallace.)

Gregg McClymont: It is a pleasure and a privilege to have the final Adjournment debate before the House departs for the summer recess. The future of HMRC jobs in Scotland is an issue close to my heart. It is hard to grow up and live in my constituency without developing personal connections with what is known locally simply as the tax office. A number of my friends and family have worked or work at HMRC Cumbernauld, and it is by some distance the largest employer in my constituency, currently employing about 1,400 staff working across the spectrum of tax, benefits, debt management and the like. It is the UK’s largest tax office. Hon. Members have doubtless at one time or another had communication with HMRC Cumbernauld—not, I hasten to add, because of anything untoward, but simply because that is where so many tax communications are sent from and to.
	In 57 days, Scotland will make its decision on whether to remain in the United Kingdom with England, Wales and Northern Ireland or whether to leave, and Scots are weighing up a wide array of issues and interests as they come to a judgment on that decision. That is why every survey of Scottish public opinion illuminates the public’s desire for more information and facts on the issues in hand. Some things are, by definition, uncertain about what would happen if Scotland was to leave the United Kingdom—things that will depend on negotiations with the rest of the United Kingdom, which will depend on the future performance of the Scottish economy in particular. But Scotland’s role in HMRC is not one of those things about which there is uncertainty. The arithmetical facts are these.
	Across the UK, HMRC employs 70,000 people. More than 9,000 of those posts are in Scotland. In percentage terms, 13% of UK HMRC staff are in Scotland, a significantly above-population-share of the total. More than 3,000 more posts are allocated in Scotland than a population share would provide. That is testimony to the excellent job that Scottish HMRC staff in Cumbernauld, in East Kilbride and elsewhere provide. It is hard to argue otherwise than that this indeed is a Scottish HMRC jobs dividend. Leaving the United Kingdom would bring to an end Scotland’s role in HMRC. That is surely uncontroversial—a fact, not an opinion.

Pete Wishart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate, but is not his timing just a little bit unfortunate? The Westminster Government are actually closing HMRC offices as he is on his feet. I know he does not like Scottish independence and I know he does not like what the Scottish Government are doing, but can he grudgingly accept the fact that we are having no compulsory redundancies in Scotland, which would mean that HMRC staff would be much better treated in an independent Scotland than they would be by the Westminster Tories?

Gregg McClymont: I will come to a couple of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but on the issue of HMRC jobs, I am sure he will agree that it is an arithmetical
	fact that Scotland has a significant dividend from UK HMRC jobs. That is because of the professionalism of staff in Scotland, but it is something that must be put on the record.
	Let us tease out a little further these arithmetical facts and then, I think, what we might judge an outcome to be for Scotland after leaving the UK and ending our membership of HMRC. We know as a fact that Scotland has significantly more tax-collecting jobs relative to the UK as a whole. Is there any reason to imagine that an independent Scottish state would need those surplus tax-collecting jobs relative to the size of the UK tax-collecting system? It seems to me that it is hard to imagine why that would be the case. The jobs dividend in Scotland regarding HMRC posts does not reflect different Scottish conditions regarding tax collection, but simply historical decisions and the excellent work undertaken by the Scottish tax office staff.
	I have also heard it said by those who might accept in a conversation the arithmetical facts around the number of Scottish HMRC jobs—perhaps by the hon. Gentleman and certainly by others—that there will be no compulsory redundancies, and of course new civil service posts will be needed in a separate Scottish state, the implication being that surplus tax-collecting staff would be transferred to those posts. As the hon. Gentleman said, the SNP Government have given a promise that there will be no compulsory public sector redundancies, but is that promise from Alex Salmond worth the paper it is written on? It is easy to promise something, as things stand, when it looks, as things stand further, as though that promise will never be tested, but let us think a little more about the state, the structure of the Scottish economy and the civil service and public sector jobs therein.
	Scotland does not have a small public sector. Our public sector is significant— bigger than that of the UK as a whole. I was glancing through the Scottish Government’s most recent statistics, and they clearly show that Scotland has more public sector jobs and significantly more tax-related public sector jobs than the UK as a whole. I welcome that—it is a credit to the staff and their professionalism—but it suggests that the slack to absorb surplus tax-collection posts in a separate Scottish state will be hard to identify. I say that based on the arithmetical facts, but also as a judgment about the relative size of Scotland’s public sector. Indeed, if we add to that the difficulties that Scotland would inevitably face as it transitioned into an entirely distinct and separate state, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and other independent experts have observed, one has to question, with some substance and credibility, what that would mean for those tax-collecting jobs in Scotland, and particularly in the largest tax office in the UK in Cumbernauld.
	It is my judgment, based on those arithmetical facts, that defending existing public sector provision, not increasing the size of the public sector, is likely to be the reality faced by my constituents working for HMRC in Cumbernauld. In the end, the argument about what happens when we have a substantial surplus of tax-collecting jobs is about whether those posts can be absorbed in the wider Scottish public sector. That is a fundamental question in the referendum debate. There are facts, as I have set them out. There are also judgments, and the
	hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) takes a different view, but it is surely incumbent on all of us to give the Scottish people all the facts as they bear on the debate and to let them draw their own conclusions.
	The role that HMRC plays is important for my constituency and for Scotland. The next Labour Government are committed to tackling the tax gap. It looks as though in the last financial year the tax gap widened again, despite the Government’s efforts to close it. In my judgment, closing that tax gap will not be achieved without using the professionalism and experience of Scottish HMRC staff.
	I am not suggesting that this is the only issue we face in the debate before 18 September—not at all—but for constituents of mine who either work in the tax office or who have friends and family who work there, the issues need to be put on the record and the facts displayed; then a judgment can be made by the people of Scotland.

Tom Clarke: As my hon. Friend knows, I share a very small part of Cumbernauld with him, and I know he is speaking for the people of the constituency. Does he agree that the problems he has identified, which are very clear, bring into focus the fact that in East Kilbride we have the headquarters of the Department for International Development, and there is no way that that can be sustained by a population reduced to 8.4% of the previous total?

Gregg McClymont: I thank my right hon. Friend for that typically wise intervention. Those are significant issues, and I think that it is incumbent on us all to put the facts on the table as Scotland approaches the decision it must make on 18 September. The role Scotland plays in an integrated United Kingdom, through DFID, HMRC and other public institutions, must be weighed, balanced and measured in that debate. I thank him again for his sagacious intervention.
	Finally, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I was delighted by the recent news that up to 170 new permanent posts are to be filled at HMRC Cumbernauld. Can he update the House on where HMRC is in that process? At the same time, around 40 jobs are threatened in the regional post room in HMRC Cumbernauld, and a decision will not be made until the autumn. I hope that he will agree that for the staff working there, that uncertainty is unwelcome. I seek further clarity from him on those questions.
	On that note, I thank the House for the opportunity to put on the record some of the arithmetic on the role of Scotland and my constituency in HMRC, and to make a plea for these issues to be discussed in a spirit of constructive debate and starting from the basis of facts.

David Gauke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) on securing the debate. He continues to make a firm, clear and eloquent case on what is, understandably, a hugely important issue for him and his constituents: the future of the HMRC office in Cumbernauld.
	Before dealing with some of the detailed points the hon. Gentleman raised, I would like to explain some of the context behind the changes occurring in HMRC staffing. As hon. Members will be aware, HMRC is currently reshaping itself in order to become a more modern, flexible and cost-effective organisation that can deliver better and more personalised services for customers, increased tax revenues through greater compliance activity and, crucially, better value for money for the public.
	In order to provide the best possible value to the taxpayer, HMRC has had to downsize. In fact, it has been steadily reducing the number of employees since it was formed nine years ago. Over that time it has reduced its staff levels from around 97,000 full-time equivalents in 2005 to around 60,000 now. On top of that reduction, and as part of its increased work on digitisation, HMRC will soon be implementing a new system whereby it will scan incoming post. The rational behind that change is that it will remove the need for sorting and transportation. Instead, correspondence will be moved to where it can be dealt with instantly, ensuring that taxpayers’ queries are dealt with more quickly and effectively.
	However, a consequence of that change will be that fewer staff will be needed to handle post, which will have an impact on HMRC’s five regional post rooms, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I should point out, however, that with regard to business presence and work force size, the recent changes have not had a disproportionate impact on Scotland. In April 2011, around 13% of HMRC’s work force were based in Scotland, and at the end of last month, following the significant reductions it has achieved across the UK, the proportion of its work force based in Scotland remains around 13%.
	As it reduces in size, it makes sense that HMRC will need to bring its people together into larger sites where they can work more flexibly and more easily share the costs of office space and IT. In May 2012, HMRC made the concluding announcement about the estate changes it would be making during the spending review period. That saw, as the hon. Gentleman has said, a number of its offices across the country announced for closure, but at the same time it was also confirmed that there would be 16 strategic locations nationwide until at least 2020. Two of those are in Scotland—Edinburgh, encompassing Bathgate and Livingston, and Glasgow, encompassing Cumbernauld, East Kilbride and Paisley.

Pete Wishart: The HMRC office in Perth was, of course, closed in the past year under this Government’s stewardship. How many jobs has HMRC lost in Scotland under this Government, how many offices have closed and how many jobs does the Minister foresee going in the course of the next five years?

David Gauke: I reiterate that the changes in Scotland reflect those across the United Kingdom. The proportion of jobs is identical to what it was three years ago. It is the case that HMRC has reduced significantly in size since 2005, and it is anticipated that it will continue to do so across the United Kingdom. We have stated that we anticipate that staff numbers will fall to about 54,000 by the end of this financial year, although, to be fair, HMRC is expanding its staff in particular areas. There is no reason to believe that Scotland will be disproportionately affected by further reductions. That has not been the history of what has happened in the past.
	HMRC continues to review its business, work force and estates needs, and is currently in consultation on a proposal to close a further 12 smaller offices during 2015, two of which are in Scotland—namely Glenrothes and Irvine. Those are all smaller offices and HMRC, for the reasons I stated previously, believes that it makes more sense, and will deliver better value to the public, to bring those staff into larger workplaces. I should make it clear, though, that the consultation on those decisions will, of course, include the consideration of equality impacts and will involve HMRC’s employees, their trades unions, Members of this House and other local interests.
	It is also worth bearing in mind that, while the number of general business roles has been reducing in size—as HMRC tries to increase compliance related yield—the number of roles in that specific area is increasing. Hon. Members may be aware that in June, HMRC advertised up to 2,100 vacancies primarily in compliance roles—up to 680 of which will be based at offices in Scotland. Many of those will be at the newly opened compliance centre in Edinburgh, and HMRC’s debt management and banking business aims to create up to 170 jobs in Cumbernauld, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has pointed out. Therefore, as HMRC’s work moves forward, new opportunities are opening up for its work force, including in the Cumbernauld constituency.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the September referendum and the future for HMRC staff should there be a vote for the Union to come to an end. Neither the Scottish Government nor the UK Government know for sure what will happen if the people of Scotland vote to leave the UK. In the event of a majority vote in favour of independence, both the UK and Scottish Governments agree that negotiations would be needed. Both Governments have agreed that negotiations to establish a new Scottish state cannot begin unless—and until—there is a yes vote in the referendum. That does not mean, however, that representatives of the UK would or could facilitate everything that the Scottish Government have said they hope to achieve through independence.
	If the people of Scotland were to vote to leave the UK, the negotiations that would follow would be unprecedented, highly complex and incredibly detailed. There are too many unknown factors at this stage to say how negotiations would proceed and how long they would take. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Scottish Government’s White Paper set out what they would like to happen if Scotland became an independent state; it is not a blueprint or a legally enforceable document, and it cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations between the UK and the new Scottish state. In fact, much of what is included in the White Paper depends on the agreement of the UK Government and numerous other public bodies and organisations. In this instance, I therefore cannot get into any detailed discussion of what might happen should such an event occur. However, the hon. Gentleman was quite right to raise, on his constituents’ behalf, concerns about uncertainty for HMRC employees in the event of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom. I am sure that I speak for the vast majority of Members of the House when I say that I hope that those negotiations never come to pass.
	To return to specific HMRC matters, HMRC as an organisation has to work within its resources and to fit its future shape. Its plans to deliver an increasingly
	modern service for its customers, while increasing tax revenues, depend on making changes to its structure and the size of its work force. The changes to date are making an impact and helping it to provide a much better service for the rest of the United Kingdom. In fact, last year it secured nearly £24 billion in additional compliance revenues—a record—and it achieved its best ever customer service levels, and all that was done by about 2,000 fewer staff, who oversaw £235 million of efficiency savings. The staff are doing an excellent job. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman about the job losses in his constituency, which he mentioned, and with the staff themselves, we need to make sure that our services continue to provide the best possible value to the public. We remain committed to a consultative approach to ensure that any changes are managed in the very best way possible.
	May I just make one further and final point, Mr Speaker? As the last speaker before the summer recess, I am the
	last hon. Member to speak from the Dispatch Box or indeed anywhere in the House and to turn to the Table to see the reassuring presence of Sir Robert Rogers. I know that the House has already had an opportunity to pay tribute to him, but I will just put my thoughts on the record. He has brought to his position an enormous amount of authority and a great love for this House. In an environment that can sometimes be a little heated, he has been a consistent embodiment of a sense of fairness, decency and not a little kindliness. In his distinguished career, he must have listened to many thousands of speeches delivered by many hundreds of right hon. and hon. Members. As the deliverer of the last of those speeches—and, I hope, on behalf of the many hundreds who have spoken before me—may I thank him for his outstanding service and wish him a long and happy retirement?
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.